CVE-2014-4715
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 · uneditedYann Collet LZ4 before r119, when used on certain 32-bit platforms that allocate memory beyond 0x80000000, does not properly detect integer overflows, which allows context-dependent attackers to cause a denial of service (memory corruption) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted Literal Run, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-4611.
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 confidenceLZ4 compression library before r119 fails to properly detect integer overflows when allocating memory beyond 0x80000000 on certain 32-bit platforms. This allows attackers to cause memory corruption via crafted Literal Run values that trigger the overflow during memory allocation.
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<= r118CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
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.
-
Check if LZ4 is installedRun 'lz4 --version' or 'lz4c --version' to see if the LZ4 command-line tool is available. Also check for library files like 'liblz4.so' in standard library directories.Affected if LZ4 is not installed means the system is not affected by this specific vulnerability in LZ4.
-
Identify the installed LZ4 versionExecute 'lz4 --version' or check the library version with 'ldd --version' combined with 'ls -la /usr/lib/liblz4*' or 'pkg-config --modversion liblz4'. Look for the revision number (rNNN) in the output.Affected if The version is r118 or earlier (r118, r117, etc.) means the integer overflow detection is missing.
-
Determine the platform architectureRun 'uname -m' or 'getconf LONG_BIT' to check if the system is 32-bit or 64-bit. The vulnerability manifests on 32-bit platforms where memory allocation beyond 0x80000000 (2GB) can trigger integer overflow.Affected if Running on a 32-bit platform (i386, i686, x86) combined with LZ4 version <= r118 means the environment is vulnerable.
-
Verify the library file versionCheck the actual shared library version: 'ls -la /usr/lib/liblz4*' or on other systems 'ls -la /lib/liblz4*'. Use 'strings' on the library file to search for version markers like 'r119' or 'r118'.Affected if The library file shows version r118 or earlier indicates the vulnerable version is in use.
A system is affected if it has LZ4 version r118 or earlier installed AND runs on a 32-bit platform, as the integer overflow in memory allocation only occurs under these specific conditions.
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 dataUpgrade LZ4 to version r119 or later to receive the integer overflow detection fix; alternatively, ensure affected systems use 64-bit platforms where this allocation boundary issue does not manifest.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-4715 — 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-2014-4715 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