CVE-2014-2992
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 · uneditedThe Misli.com application for Android does not verify X.509 certificates from SSL servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate.
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 confidenceThe Misli.com Android application fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL/TLS servers, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept communications by presenting fraudulent certificates. This stems from the app using an insecure TrustManager or disabling certificate verification, enabling attackers to spoof legitimate servers and harvest sensitive user data.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 if Misli.com app is installedCheck installed applications on the Android device for 'Misli.com' or 'Misli' applicationAffected if The Misli.com Android app is present on the device
-
Analyze app network security configurationObtain the APK file and examine the AndroidManifest.xml for network security settings, then decompile to check for TrustManager implementation in the source codeAffected if The app implements a custom TrustManager that accepts all certificates or disables certificate validation
-
Search for insecure TrustManager patternsReview decompiled Java/Smali code for patterns like 'TrustAllCertificates', 'ALLOW_ALL_HOSTNAME_VERIFIER', or custom TrustManager implementations that override checkServerTrusted without proper validationAffected if Code contains TrustManager implementations that bypass certificate chain validation
-
Verify SSLContext or hostname verifier settingsSearch for SSLContext initialization with custom TrustManagers or hostname verifiers set to trust all hosts (e.g., 'setDefaultTrustManager(null)' or 'HostnameVerifier' accepting all)Affected if The app configures SSLContext or HostnameVerifier to accept any certificate or hostname without validation
If the Misli.com Android app is installed and its code contains custom TrustManager implementations or SSL configurations that bypass X.509 certificate validation, the environment is vulnerable to MITM attacks.
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 dataImplement proper X.509 certificate chain validation using Android's default TrustManager, or employ certificate pinning for critical endpoints to ensure the app only trusts predefined certificates or CA roots.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-2992 — 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-2014-2992 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