CVE-2014-5280
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 · uneditedboot2docker 1.2 and earlier allows attackers to conduct cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks by leveraging Docker daemons enabling TCP connections without TLS authentication.
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 confidenceboot2docker 1.2 and earlier contains a CSRF vulnerability where Docker daemons accepting TCP connections without TLS authentication can be exploited. Attackers can trick authenticated users into making unintended API calls to the Docker daemon by leveraging the lack of CSRF protections on unauthenticated TCP endpoints.
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<= 1.2.0CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 if boot2docker is in useRun 'boot2docker version' or check the boot2docker ISO version file (typically /var/lib/boot2docker/etc/os-version or similar boot2docker system files)Affected if The system is running boot2docker and the version is 1.2.0 or earlier
-
Verify Docker daemon TCP listener configurationCheck Docker daemon configuration (commonly in /etc/default/docker, /etc/docker/daemon.json, or via 'docker -d' flags). Look for -H or --host flags exposing TCP ports (e.g., -H tcp://0.0.0.0:2375)Affected if The Docker daemon is configured to listen on a TCP endpoint (especially without encryption)
-
Confirm TLS authentication is disabled for TCPInspect Docker daemon startup flags or configuration files for the absence of TLS-related flags (--tls, --tlsverify, --tlscacert, --tlscert, --tlskey) on the TCP listenerAffected if TCP connections are accepted without TLS verification (no --tlsverify flag present)
-
Check for CSRF protection on the Docker APIInspect HTTP headers returned from the Docker API endpoint (e.g., via 'curl -I http://<docker-host>:2375/info') for absence of anti-CSRF headers such as X-CSRF-Token, X-Docker-CSRF-Token, or similar protectionsAffected if The Docker API responds over unauthenticated TCP without CSRF protection headers
A user is affected if running boot2docker <= 1.2.0 with the Docker daemon exposed over unauthenticated TCP (no TLS) and lacking CSRF protection headers on the API endpoint.
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 dataEnable TLS authentication for Docker daemon TCP connections and configure proper CORS/anti-CSRF headers. Upgrade to a patched version of boot2docker if available, or migrate to Docker Machine with secure TLS configuration.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-5280 — 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-2014-5280 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