CVE-2014-2903
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCyaSSL does not check the key usage extension in leaf certificates, which allows remote attackers to spoof servers via a crafted server certificate not authorized for use in an SSL/TLS handshake.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceCyaSSL fails to validate the key usage extension in X.509 leaf certificates during SSL/TLS handshake verification. This allows an attacker to use a certificate that is valid in format but not authorized (e.g., a certificate intended for code signing or email encryption) to impersonate a server in an SSL/TLS connection.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 2.9.4CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the WolfSSL/CyaSSL library in useSearch for files named libwolfssl, libcyassl, or wolfssl/cyassl headers in your system. Check your application dependencies for links to these libraries.Affected if Your system uses WolfSSL or CyaSSL library for TLS operations
-
Determine the installed version of WolfSSL/CyaSSLRun 'wolfssl version' or check the library file version. If using source, inspect the version.h file or the output of --version during build. Compare against the affected range: <= 2.9.4Affected if The version number is 2.9.4 or lower
-
Verify if TLS server authentication is enabledCheck your application or service configuration for SSL/TLS settings. Look for options like verify_peer, verify_client, or certificate validation flags being set to true or enabled.Affected if Your application performs TLS server certificate verification (which is standard for HTTPS/TLS servers)
-
Confirm the key usage extension is not validatedReview the SSL/TLS handshake code that performs certificate chain validation. Check if the key usage extension OID (2.5.29.15) is checked during X.509 certificate verification.Affected if Your code uses WolfSSL/CyaSSL for certificate validation without explicit key usage checking and the library version is <= 2.9.4
You are affected if your environment uses WolfSSL or CyaSSL version 2.9.4 or earlier and performs TLS certificate verification, as the library does not validate the key usage extension in X.509 certificates.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade to a CyaSSL version that implements proper key usage extension validation, or ensure certificates are validated against expected key usage constraints before accepting them in TLS handshakes.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,496.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-2903 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2014-2903 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data