CVE-2014-6649
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 MyBroadband Tapatalk (aka com.tapatalk.mybroadbandcozavb) application 3.9.22 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 MyBroadband Tapatalk Android application version 3.9.22 fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted communications by presenting a crafted certificate. This is a classic SSL certificate validation bypass vulnerability in the Android app's networking layer.
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= 3.9.22CVSS 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 MyBroadband Tapatalk app is installedOn the Android device, go to Settings > Apps or use an app inventory tool to list installed applications. Look for an app named 'Mybroadband' or 'MyBroadband Tapatalk'.Affected if The app is present on the device
-
Verify the installed app versionIn Android Settings > Apps > MyBroadband Tapatalk, view the 'Version' or 'Version code' field. Alternatively, use a package manager or app inspection tool to retrieve the versionName attribute.Affected if The version listed is exactly 3.9.22
-
Confirm network communication uses SSL/TLSMonitor network traffic from the device using a packet capture tool or proxy. Observe whether the app establishes HTTPS connections to remote servers.Affected if The app makes SSL/TLS connections to external servers
-
Test SSL certificate validation behaviorSet up a man-in-the-middle proxy with a self-signed certificate. Attempt to intercept traffic from the app while the proxy presents an invalid certificate. Observe whether the app accepts the invalid certificate and completes the connection.Affected if The app accepts the self-signed certificate and allows the connection to proceed without rejection
A user is affected if the MyBroadband Tapatalk Android app version 3.9.22 is installed and the app does not properly validate SSL certificates during network communications.
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 in the Android app, including certificate chain verification, hostname validation, and rejection of self-signed or invalid certificates using Android's built-in certificate validation mechanisms.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 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 $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-6649 — 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-2014-6649 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