CVE-2014-5788
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 Ninja Chicken Adventure Island (aka mominis.Generic_Android.Ninja_Chicken_Adventure_Island) application 1.1.1 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 Ninja Chicken Adventure Island Android app version 1.1.1 fails to validate X.509 certificates when establishing SSL/TLS connections with servers. This allows an attacker positioned on the same network to perform a man-in-the-middle attack, intercepting and potentially modifying encrypted traffic by presenting a crafted (self-signed or fraudulent) certificate that the app accepts without verification.
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= 1.1.1CVSS 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.
-
Identify the installed app versionOn the Android device, go to Settings > Apps > Ninja Chicken Adventure Island (or Playscape Ninja Chicken Adventure Island) and check the version number displayed under App InfoAffected if The version listed is exactly 1.1.1 (this is the only affected version)
-
Confirm the app uses network communicationWhile the app is running, monitor network traffic using tools like packet capture or check if the app requests network permissions (INTERNET) in its manifestAffected if The app makes outbound network connections (if it never connects to any server, the vulnerability may not be exploitable in practice)
-
Analyze SSL certificate validation in the appObtain the app APK file, decompile it (using tools like apktool or jadx), and examine the source code for SSL/TLS connection implementation. Look for HTTPS connections and check if they use a custom TrustManager, implement certificate pinning, or properly validate the certificate chainAffected if The code shows SSL connections are made WITHOUT proper certificate chain validation (no TrustManager override check, no pinning implementation, or certificate validation is disabled)
You are affected if the installed app version is exactly 1.1.1 AND it makes network connections without validating X.509 certificates against a trusted root CA.
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 X.509 certificate validation in the app's SSL/TLS implementation, preferably through certificate pinning or a properly configured TrustManager that validates the entire certificate chain against a trusted root CA.
- 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-2014-5788 — 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-2014-5788 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