CVE-2014-5831
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 Hotel Story: Resort Simulation (aka com.happylabs.hotelstory) application 1.7.9B 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 Hotel Story: Resort Simulation (com.happylabs.hotelstory) version 1.7.9B fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers during HTTPS connections. This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept communications by presenting fraudulent certificates, enabling server spoofing and theft of sensitive data transmitted by the app.
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= _resort_simulationCVSS 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 if the vulnerable app is installedOn the Android device, check installed packages for com.happylabs.hotelstory using a package manager or security scanner app, or run: adb shell pm list packages | grep hotelstoryAffected if The package com.happylabs.hotelstory is found on the device
-
Check the installed versionUse 'adb shell dumpsys package com.happylabs.hotelstory' or view app details in Settings > Apps to find the versionName/versionCodeAffected if The version is 1.7.9B (or any version within the affected range if broader than just 1.7.9B)
-
Determine if the app transmits sensitive data over networkObserve app behavior during use - monitor network traffic using a proxy or network sniffer to see if the app sends login credentials, personal information, or other sensitive data over HTTPSAffected if The app transmits any sensitive user data over HTTPS connections
-
Test SSL certificate validationConfigure a proxy with an untrusted/self-signed SSL certificate and attempt to intercept traffic from the app. Use tools like Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP with a certificate that fails chain validationAffected if The app successfully establishes connections through the proxy without rejecting the invalid certificate, indicating certificate validation is not performed
A user is affected if the Hotel Story app version 1.7.9B is installed and transmits sensitive data, with the app accepting invalid SSL certificates during HTTPS connections.
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 dataThe application must implement proper SSL/TLS certificate validation, including verifying the certificate chain, checking the certificate subject against the expected hostname, and validating against a trusted Certificate Authority store.
- Consultation2.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-5831 — 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-2014-5831 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