CVE-2014-3649
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 · uneditedJBoss AeroGear has reflected XSS via the password field
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 confidenceJBoss AeroGear contains a reflected XSS vulnerability where malicious script can be injected through the password field. When a user submits the password field with crafted input, the application reflects it back without proper sanitization, allowing arbitrary JavaScript execution in the victim's browser.
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<= 2014-09-19CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 JBoss AeroGear is installedSearch for AeroGear installations by checking common JBoss application directories, WAR files, or package managers. Look for 'aerogear' or 'org.jboss.aerogear' strings in deployed applications.Affected if AeroGear is present and the version cannot be determined or is at or before 2014-09-19
-
Check the deployed AeroGear versionExamine the AeroGear WAR file or installed package metadata. Look for version information in manifest files (META-INF/MANIFEST.MF), pom.xml, or version properties files within the AeroGear deployment.Affected if The version string indicates a build date on or before 2014-09-19, or no version information is available but the installation date predates patches for this issue
-
Verify the password field is exposedLocate the login or password reset forms in the AeroGear web interface. Check if the password field accepts user input and is part of forms that process authentication or account recovery.Affected if The password field is accessible and part of form submissions without evidence of input validation or output encoding being applied
-
Inspect form handling for XSS protectionReview the server-side code handling the password form submission. Look for output encoding, HTML escaping, or input sanitization functions applied to the password field value before it is reflected back to the browser.Affected if No output encoding or escaping is applied to the password field before it is rendered in responses, allowing raw user input to be reflected
If AeroGear is installed with a version at or before 2014-09-19 and the password field form does not perform output encoding on user input, the environment is likely affected by this reflected XSS 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 dataImplement output encoding/HTML escaping for all user-supplied input in the password field and other form fields to prevent script injection.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-3649 — 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-2014-3649 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