CVE-2014-4000
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 · uneditedCacti before 1.0.0 allows remote authenticated users to conduct PHP object injection attacks and execute arbitrary PHP code via a crafted serialized object, related to calling unserialize(stripslashes()).
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 confidenceCacti before 1.0.0 contains a PHP object injection vulnerability where the application calls unserialize(stripslashes()) on user-supplied data. This unsafe deserialization allows remote authenticated attackers to inject crafted serialized PHP objects, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution.
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< 1.0.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 Cacti installation and versionCheck for Cacti by looking for its installation directory, typically under web root. Locate the file 'include/global.php' or 'lib/functions.php' and search for a version constant or check the changelog file for the version number.Affected if The installed version is below 1.0.0 (e.g., 0.8.x, 0.9.x, or any version starting with 0.)
-
Locate PHP files using unsafe unserializeSearch the Cacti source code for the pattern 'unserialize(stripslashes(' across all PHP files, particularly in authentication or input handling modules.Affected if Any PHP file contains unserialize() called directly on user-supplied input without prior validation.
-
Check authentication requirementsDetermine whether the Cacti instance requires authentication for access. The vulnerability requires a remote authenticated attacker, so confirm if anonymous or guest access is enabled.Affected if The application allows unauthenticated access or has weak guest/anonymous user settings that could be exploited.
-
Inspect web server access logsReview web server access logs for unusual serialized data patterns in GET/POST requests to Cacti endpoints. Look for patterns containing 'O:' or 'a:' which indicate PHP object serialization.Affected if Any requests to Cacti contain serialized PHP objects in the request parameters.
You are affected if Cacti version is below 1.0.0 and the application contains code that passes user input to unserialize() without sanitization.
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 data1.0.0
Upgrade to Cacti version 1.0.0 or later. Until upgrade is possible, audit code for calls to unserialize() with user-controlled input and replace with safe deserialization methods or remove the vulnerable code paths.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-4000 — 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-2014-4000 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