CVE-2014-4626
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 SP1 P29, 6.7 SP2 before P18, 7.0 before P16, and 7.1 before P09 allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges by (1) placing a command in a dm_job object and setting this object's owner to a privileged user or placing a rename action in a dm_job_request object and waiting for a (2) dm_UserRename or (3) dm_GroupRename service task, aka ESA-2014-105. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2014-2515.
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 confidencePrivilege escalation vulnerability in EMC Documentum Content Server allows authenticated users to gain elevated privileges by manipulating dm_job objects (injecting commands and setting owner to privileged user) or dm_job_request objects (placing rename actions awaiting dm_UserRename/dm_GroupRename service tasks). This is an incomplete fix for CVE-2014-2515.
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= 6.7= 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
- Low
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/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 versionRun the following DQL query against the Content Server repository: SELECT r_object_id, object_name, a_version_label FROM dm_server_config WHERE object_name = 'DM_SERVER_CONFIG' OR query the dm_server_config object directly using Documentum Administrator or the API.Affected if The installed version is 6.7, 7.0, or 7.1 (including any 6.7 SP1 or SP2 versions before the patched versions listed in the CVE). Versions 6.7 SP1 P29, 6.7 SP2 P18, 7.0 P16, or 7.1 P09 are NOT affected.
-
Verify permissions on dm_job objectsQuery the permission model for dm_job objects using: SELECT r_object_id, object_name, owner_name, a_clob_text FROM dm_job. Check if non-privileged users have write or execute permissions on job objects.Affected if Non-privileged or low-privileged users have create, write, or execute permissions on dm_job objects, allowing them to inject commands or change ownership to privileged users.
-
Inspect dm_job object configurationsExamine existing dm_job objects for suspicious command injections or modified owner values: SELECT r_object_id, object_name, method_name, owner_name FROM dm_job WHERE owner_name NOT IN ('dm_owner', 'dm_server').Affected if Any dm_job objects exist where the owner has been changed to a privileged user (such as dm_owner) or where method/command parameters have been modified from their original values.
-
Verify permissions on dm_job_request objectsQuery permission settings on dm_job_request objects: SELECT r_object_id, object_name, a_clob_text FROM dm_job_request. Check if standard users can create job requests.Affected if Non-privileged users have create or write permissions on dm_job_request objects, enabling them to place rename actions awaiting dm_UserRename or dm_GroupRename service tasks.
-
Review audit logs for job manipulationSearch the audit logs for events related to dm_job and dm_job_request object modifications, particularly: dmJobExecute, dmJobCreate, or dmJobRequestCreate events from non-privileged accounts.Affected if Audit logs show creation or modification of dm_job or dm_job_request objects by non-administrative users, especially involving ownership changes or execution of privileged job methods.
A user is affected if their Documentum Content Server version is 6.7, 7.0, or 7.1 (prior to the patched versions) AND non-privileged users have elevated permissions on dm_job or dm_job_request objects that would allow command injection or ownership 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.
dbcve · scopedApply vendor patches: 6.7 SP1 P29, 6.7 SP2 P18, 7.0 P16, or 7.1 P09. Review and restrict permissions on dm_job and dm_job_request objects for non-privileged users.
6.7 SP1 P29 / 6.7 SP2 P18 / 7.0 P16 / 7.1 P09, or upgrade to 7.2+
- Identify the current installed version and service pack of Documentum Content Server (e.g., 6.7 SP1, 6.7 SP2, 7.0, or 7.1)
- For version 6.7 SP1: Apply patch P29 or later
- For version 6.7 SP2: Apply patch P18 or later
- For version 7.0: Apply patch P16 or later
- For version 7.1: Apply patch P09 or later
- Alternatively, upgrade to a version higher than the vulnerable releases (e.g., 7.2 or later which includes all fixes)
- After applying the patch, verify the fix by confirming dm_job and dm_job_request objects cannot be manipulated to elevate privileges
- Restart Content Server services as required by the patch installation
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-4626 — 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-2014-4626 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