CVE-2014-6331
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 · uneditedMicrosoft Active Directory Federation Services (AD FS) 2.0, 2.1, and 3.0, when a configured SAML Relying Party lacks a sign-out endpoint, does not properly process logoff actions, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain access by leveraging an unattended workstation, aka "Active Directory Federation Services Information Disclosure Vulnerability."
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 confidenceMicrosoft AD FS versions 2.0, 2.1, and 3.0 fail to properly terminate sessions when a configured SAML Relying Party lacks a sign-out endpoint. This allows an attacker with physical or network access to an unattended workstation to obtain authenticated access to federated resources by leveraging incomplete session logout behavior.
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= 2.1= 2.0= 3.0CVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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 AD FS versionCheck the installed version of Microsoft Active Directory Federation Services on the server. This can be done via PowerShell (Get-AdfsProperties) or by reviewing installed programs. Compare your version to 2.0, 2.1, or 3.0.Affected if The installed version is 2.0, 2.1, or 3.0.
-
Identify configured SAML Relying PartiesList all SAML Relying Party trusts configured in AD FS. In AD FS 2.0/3.0, this can be done via the AD FS Management console or PowerShell (Get-RelyingPartyTrust).Affected if There is at least one SAML Relying Party trust configured.
-
Check for sign-out endpoint configurationFor each configured SAML Relying Party, examine whether a sign-out (Single Logout/SLO) endpoint is configured. This is typically found in the Relying Party trust properties under the Endpoints or Single Sign-On section.Affected if Any Relying Party lacks a configured sign-out endpoint.
-
Test session termination behaviorInitiate a federated session by authenticating to a relying party, then attempt to log out from AD FS (or the identity provider side). Without SLO configured on the Relying Party, verify whether the session at the relying party remains active.Affected if Logging out of AD FS does not terminate the session at the relying party.
You are affected if you run AD FS 2.0, 2.1, or 3.0 and have any SAML Relying Party configured without a sign-out endpoint, allowing sessions to persist after logout.
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 dataConfigure sign-out (SLO - Single Logout) endpoints for all SAML Relying Parties in AD FS to ensure sessions are properly terminated across all federated services.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-6331 — 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-2014-6331 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