CVE-2014-4622
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 · uneditedEMC Documentum Content Server before 6.7 SP2 P17, 7.0 through P15, and 7.1 before P08 does not properly check authorization for subgroups of privileged groups, which allows remote authenticated sysadmins to gain super-user privileges, and bypass intended restrictions on data access and server actions, via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceEMC Documentum Content Server contains an authorization flaw where it fails to properly validate permissions for subgroups within privileged groups. An authenticated sysadmin can exploit this to gain super-user privileges and bypass intended access controls on data and server operations.
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<= 6.7= 6.0= 6.5= 6.6= 6.7= 7.0= 7.1CVSS 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
- High
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 Documentum Content Server versionUse Documentum administrator tools (iapi, dmcl, or enterprise manager) to query the server version. Common command: 'iapi -u(username) -p(password) -c(docbase)' then run 'apiget,c,serverversion' or check installation metadata.Affected if Version is 6.0, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 7.0, or 7.1 (or any version <= 6.7)
-
Verify privileged group configurationQuery the documentum repository for groups with elevated permissions. Look for groups such as 'super_users', 'administrators', or custom privileged groups using DMQL: 'select group_name from dm_group where group_class = 'role' and r_is_private = 0'Affected if Privileged groups exist in the repository and contain elevated permissions
-
Check for subgroups within privileged groupsExamine if any privileged groups contain subgroups as members rather than individual users. Use iapi or query: 'select parent_group_name, child_group_name from dm_group_rg where parent_group_name in (select group_name from dm_group where group_name in ('super_users','administrators'))'Affected if Subgroups are members of privileged groups (parent-child group relationships exist)
-
Verify subgroup membership configurationInspect the subgroup membership hierarchy to determine if authenticated sysadmin users can modify subgroup-to-privileged-group associations. Check user permissions on the group objects using 'getperm' commands in iapi for the group_rg relation objects.Affected if Authenticated users with sysadmin rights can modify which subgroups belong to privileged groups
The environment is affected if Documentum Content Server version is 6.0, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 7.0, or 7.1 AND privileged groups contain subgroups as members, allowing privilege escalation via subgroup membership manipulation.
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 EMC Documentum patches: upgrade to 6.7 SP2 P17, 7.0 to P16, 7.1 P08 or later. Verify all subgroup membership configurations post-patch.
- Consultation12.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $16,896.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-4622 — 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-2014-4622 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