CVE-2014-4192
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 Dual_EC_DRBG implementation in EMC RSA BSAFE-C Toolkits (aka Share for C and C++) processes certain requests for output bytes by considering only the requested byte count and not the use of cached bytes, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain plaintext from TLS sessions by recovering the algorithm's inner state, a different issue than CVE-2007-6755.
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 Dual_EC_DRBG implementation in EMC RSA BSAFE-C Toolkits processes output byte requests by considering only the requested byte count rather than cached bytes, allowing attackers to recover the algorithm's inner state and obtain plaintext from TLS sessions.
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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/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.
-
Confirm Dell Bsafe Share installationSearch for BSAFE library files or components (such as libbsafe, BSAFE shared objects, or Dell Bsafe Share installed packages) on the systemAffected if Dell Bsafe Share or RSA BSAFE-C toolkit components are found on the system
-
Locate BSAFE configuration filesSearch for BSAFE configuration files or settings that control the default random number generator (DRBG) selectionAffected if Configuration files exist and show Dual_EC_DRBG as the enabled or default DRBG
-
Check DRBG configuration in code or configInspect application configurations or code that initializes BSAFE cryptographic settings to identify which DRBG is selected for TLS operationsAffected if Dual_EC_DRBG is explicitly selected or set as default in BSAFE initialization settings
-
Identify TLS sessions using BSAFEAudit TLS implementations or configurations to determine if they rely on BSAFE-C toolkits for cryptographic operationsAffected if TLS sessions are established using BSAFE-C for random number generation
The environment is affected if Dell Bsafe Share is installed and Dual_EC_DRBG is enabled or configured as the default random number generator for TLS operations.
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 dataDisable Dual_EC_DRBG in BSAFE configurations and switch to alternative DRBGs (AES-CTR, HMAC_DRBG) for cryptographic operations; audit TLS deployments using affected toolkits.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-4192 — 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-2014-4192 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