CVE-2014-2935
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 · uneditedcostview3/xmlrpc_server/xmlrpc.php in CostView in Caldera 9.20 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in a methodCall element in a PHP XMLRPC request.
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 · moderate confidenceThe CostView application version 9.20 contains a command injection vulnerability in its XML-RPC server (costview3/xmlrpc_server/xmlrpc.php). The xmlrpc.php script fails to sanitize shell metacharacters in the methodCall element of PHP XMLRPC requests, allowing remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary operating system commands.
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= 9.20CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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.
-
Confirm CostView versionLocate and inspect CostView version information. Check installation directories, version files, or the application's about/help page for the exact version number.Affected if The installed version is 9.20 (Caldera Caldera)
-
Verify xmlrpc.php existsCheck if the file costview3/xmlrpc_server/xmlrpc.php exists in the web root or application directory.Affected if The xmlrpc.php file exists at the expected path
-
Confirm XML-RPC endpoint is accessibleSend an HTTP request to the xmlrpc.php endpoint (e.g., GET or POST to /costview3/xmlrpc_server/xmlrpc.php) and verify the server responds.Affected if The XML-RPC endpoint returns an HTTP response (even if it returns an error)
If CostView version 9.20 is installed AND the xmlrpc.php file exists and is web-accessible, the environment is affected by this command injection vulnerability.
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 dataIf XML-RPC functionality is not required, disable or remove the xmlrpc.php endpoint. Otherwise, implement strict input validation to sanitize or reject shell metacharacters in the methodCall parameter before passing to system calls. Consider applying any available vendor patches from Caldera for CostView.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-2935 — 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-2014-2935 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