CVE-2014-5801
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 DataGard VPN + AV (aka ocshield.com) application @7F050013 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 DataGard VPN + AV Android application fails to verify X.509 certificates from SSL servers during TLS/SSL connections. This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept and decrypt encrypted traffic by presenting forged certificates, enabling credential theft and session hijacking.
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= \@7f050013CVSS 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.
-
Check if DataGard VPN + AV is installedOn the Android device, go to Settings > Apps > Apps manager and search for 'DataGard' or 'Datagard VPN + AV', or check the application list for 'Ocshield Datagard Vpn + Av'Affected if The application is not found on the device, then the user is not affected by this specific vulnerability
-
Identify the installed versionIn the app info screen (Settings > Apps > DataGard VPN + AV), look for the Version or Version name field. It may display a version number or the build identifier '@7f050013'Affected if The installed version matches '@7f050013' or falls within the affected version range, indicating the vulnerability is present
-
Verify VPN functionality is enabledOpen the DataGard application and check if the VPN feature is active or can be activated. Look for VPN connection settings or status within the appAffected if The VPN functionality is enabled or can be enabled, meaning the flawed SSL/TLS certificate validation code path can be triggered
-
Test for certificate validation failure (optional verification)Attempt to use the VPN on a network where you can observe traffic (e.g., using a proxy or network capture tool). The vulnerability exists if the app accepts a self-signed or invalid certificate without warningAffected if The application accepts invalid or self-signed certificates without user warning or validation errors, confirming the certificate verification flaw is exploitable
A user is affected if they have Ocshield Datagard Vpn + Av version @7f050013 installed and the VPN functionality is enabled or can be activated.
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 dataUsers should avoid using the VPN functionality on untrusted networks until the vendor releases a patch that implements proper certificate validation. Consider disabling the application entirely until fixed.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,720.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-5801 — 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-2014-5801 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