FreeBSDOperating system
CVE-2014-3001
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 device file system (aka devfs) in FreeBSD 10.0 before p2 does not load default rulesets when booting, which allows context-dependent attackers to bypass intended restrictions by leveraging a jailed device node process.
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 confidenceIn FreeBSD 10.0 before patch 2, the device file system (devfs) fails to load its default rulesets during the boot process. This means access controls that should restrict device node access are not enforced. An attacker with code execution within a FreeBSD jail can exploit this to bypass devfs device restrictions and access device nodes they should not be able to reach.
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
FreeBSDOperating system
= 10.0CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:M/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.
-
Check FreeBSD versionRun 'uname -a' or 'sysctl kern.osversion' to identify the installed FreeBSD versionAffected if The version is exactly 10.0 without any patches applied (version shows 10.0-RELEASE or similar without -p2 or later) and patch level is below 2
-
Determine if running inside a jailExecute 'jls' or 'jexec <jid> jls' to list active jailsAffected if A jail is active and the system is FreeBSD 10.0 unpatched - this is the exploitable context for this CVE
-
Verify devfs ruleset configuration in jailUse 'jls' to get jail IDs, then check jail configuration files in /etc/jail.conf or look up ruleset settings via 'jexec <jid> devfs rule showsets'Affected if The jail has a devfs_ruleset defined but the rules are not being applied at boot (default rulesets fail to load)
-
Test if devfs access controls are actually enforcedFrom within a jail, attempt to access a restricted device node (such as /dev/ad0 or /dev/da0) that should be blocked by default devfs rules, or compare output of 'devfs rule showsets' inside vs outside jailAffected if The jail can access device nodes that should be restricted by default devfs rules, indicating rulesets are not loaded
A system is affected if it runs FreeBSD 10.0 without the -p2 patch, uses FreeBSD jails, and the devfs rulesets are not being applied (jail can access restricted device nodes it should not be able to reach).
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 dataApply FreeBSD 10.0-p2 or later updates to ensure devfs default rulesets load at boot. For systems that cannot be immediately updated, verify manually that devfs rulesets are being applied in jail configurations.
Fix this in FreeBSD
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-3001 — 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-2014-3001 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