CVE-2014-5117
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 · uneditedTor before 0.2.4.23 and 0.2.5 before 0.2.5.6-alpha maintains a circuit after an inbound RELAY_EARLY cell is received by a client, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct traffic-confirmation attacks by using the pattern of RELAY and RELAY_EARLY cells as a means of communicating information about hidden service names.
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 confidenceTor maintains circuit state after receiving an inbound RELAY_EARLY cell from a relay, which allows remote attackers to conduct traffic-confirmation attacks by correlating patterns of RELAY and RELAY_EARLY cells to infer information about hidden service names.
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<= 0.2.4.22= 0.0.2= 0.0.3= 0.0.4= 0.0.5= 0.0.6= 0.0.6.1= 0.0.6.2= 0.0.7= 0.0.7.1= 0.0.7.2= 0.0.7.3CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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.
-
Identify Tor versionRun 'tor --version' or check the version reported in Tor logsAffected if The version is 0.2.4.22 or earlier, or any 0.0.x version through 0.0.7.3
-
Confirm Tor is running as a relayCheck torrc configuration for 'ORPort' directive or verify the relay port is listening (e.g., netstat -n | grep ORPort)Affected if Tor is configured as a relay with an ORPort open; the vulnerability applies to relay operations
-
Verify inbound RELAY_EARLY cell handlingInspect Tor logs for circuit creation events; this is a passive vulnerability requiring no specific config check as the flaw exists in codeAffected if Running an affected Tor version as a relay enables the vulnerability by default
You are affected if running Tor version 0.2.4.22 or earlier, or any 0.0.x version (0.0.2 through 0.0.7.3), and the Tor instance is operating as a relay.
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 Tor to version 0.2.4.23 or later, or 0.2.5.6-alpha or later.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-5117 — 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-2014-5117 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