CVE-2014-6646
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 bellyhoodcom (aka com.tapatalk.bellyhoodcom) application 3.4.23 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 bellyhoodcom version 3.4.23 fails to perform X.509 certificate validation when establishing SSL/TLS connections. This means the app does not verify the server's certificate chain, allowing attackers to intercept traffic by presenting fraudulent certificates.
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= 3.4.23CVSS 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 bellyhoodcom app versionOn Android device: Settings > Apps > bellyhoodcom > Version. Or use adb: adb shell pm list packages | grep bellyhoodcom then adb shell dumpsys package <package_name> | grep versionNameAffected if Version is exactly 3.4.23
-
Determine if the app makes network connectionsUse a network proxy (like Burp Suite or Charles) or monitor network traffic using tools like Packet Capture or tcpdump. Attempt to intercept traffic from the app.Affected if The app establishes SSL/TLS connections to external servers
-
Verify if certificate validation is implementedDecompile the APK (using apktool or similar) and inspect the source code for SSL/TLS implementation. Look for uses of custom TrustManager, SSLSocketFactory, or check if certificate verification is bypassed (e.g., null TrustManager, ALLOW_ALL_HOSTNAME_VERIFIER)Affected if Code shows custom TrustManager that accepts all certificates, or hostname verifier set to ALLOW_ALL, or no certificate chain validation performed
-
Test for missing certificate chain validationSet up a proxy with a self-signed certificate and attempt to use the app. If the app connects successfully without certificate warnings, validation is likely missing.Affected if App accepts connections to the proxy without certificate validation errors despite server presenting an untrusted certificate
You are affected if the bellyhoodcom app version is 3.4.23 and it makes SSL/TLS connections without proper certificate chain validation.
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 certificate validation including chain-of-trust verification and hostname verification. Use certificate pinning for added security.
- Consultation4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-6646 — 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-2014-6646 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