DockerApplication
CVE-2014-5277
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 · uneditedDocker before 1.3.1 and docker-py before 0.5.3 fall back to HTTP when the HTTPS connection to the registry fails, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to conduct downgrade attacks and obtain authentication and image data by leveraging a network position between the client and the registry to block HTTPS traffic.
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 confidenceDocker and docker-py versions prior to 1.3.1 and 0.5.3 respectively implement an insecure fallback mechanism where they automatically downgrade to unencrypted HTTP when HTTPS connections to registries fail. An attacker with network positioning can block HTTPS traffic to force this fallback, then intercept or modify authentication credentials and container image data in transit.
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
DockerApplication
<= 1.3.0
Docker PyApplication
<= 0.5.3CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Check Docker client versionRun `docker --version` or `docker version --format '{{.Client.Version}}'`Affected if The reported version is 1.3.0 or lower
-
Check docker-py library versionRun `pip show docker-py` or `python -c "import docker; print(docker.__version__)"`Affected if The reported version is 0.5.3 or lower
-
Check Docker daemon version on the hostRun `docker version --format '{{.Server.Version}}'` if you have access to the daemonAffected if The daemon version is 1.3.0 or lower and the client version is also at risk
-
Identify all installed Python packages providing Docker client functionalityRun `pip list | grep -i docker` to find any docker-related Python packagesAffected if Any docker-related package shows version 0.5.3 or lower
You are affected if either your Docker client or docker-py installation has a version at or below the affected ranges (Docker <=1.3.0 or docker-py <=0.5.3), since both implement the insecure HTTP fallback mechanism.
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 Docker to version 1.3.1 or later and docker-py to version 0.5.3 or later to eliminate the HTTP fallback vulnerability. Alternatively, ensure network paths to registries cannot be intercepted or blocked.
Fix this in Docker
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-5277 — 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-2014-5277 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