CVE-2014-5693
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 · uneditedThe Slots Vacation - FREE Slots (aka com.scopely.slotsvacation) application 1.47.2 for Android does not verify X.509 certificates from SSL servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate.
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 confidenceThe Android application Slots Vacation (com.scopely.slotsvacation) version 1.47.2 fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers. This allows an attacker positioned on the network to intercept encrypted traffic by presenting a forged certificate, enabling man-in-the-middle attacks and exposure of sensitive data transmitted between the app and backend servers.
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= 1.47.2CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:A/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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.
-
Verify Slots Vacation app is installedRun 'adb shell pm list packages | grep -i slots' to list installed packages containing 'slots', or check app settings under Settings > Apps on the deviceAffected if The package com.scopely.slotsvacation or com.scopely.withbuddies.slotsvacation is present on the device
-
Check installed app versionRun 'adb shell dumpsys package com.scopely.slotsvacation' and look for versionName and versionCode in the output, or view app info in Settings > Apps > Slots VacationAffected if versionName equals 1.47.2 or versionCode equals 47 (the specific affected version)
-
Confirm network communication capabilityCheck if the app has network permissions by reviewing AndroidManifest.xml or running 'adb shell dumpsys package com.scopely.slotsvacation | grep -i permission'Affected if The app holds INTERNET permission, which enables network traffic vulnerable to interception
-
Assess exposure to sensitive data transmissionUse a network proxy (such as Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP) configured with a self-signed certificate to intercept traffic from the app; observe if login credentials, session tokens, or in-app purchase data are transmitted without proper certificate validationAffected if The app accepts the proxy's forged certificate and allows traffic inspection, indicating broken certificate validation
If the Slots Vacation app version 1.47.2 is installed and communicates over the network, the device is affected by this certificate validation vulnerability.
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 dataImplement proper SSL/TLS certificate validation in the Android app by using a correctly configured TrustManager or implementing certificate pinning to verify server certificates before establishing secure connections.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-5693 — 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-2014-5693 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