CVE-2014-6655
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 Tortoise Forum (aka org.tortoiseforum.android.forumrunner) application 3.5.16 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 Tortoise Forum Android application version 3.5.16 does not perform X.509 certificate validation when establishing SSL/TLS connections, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept traffic by presenting fraudulent certificates and capture sensitive data transmitted between the app and server.
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= 3.5.16CVSS 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.
-
Locate Tortoise Forum app installationOn the Android device, navigate to Settings > Apps to find the installed application, or use ADB command: adb shell pm list packages | grep -i tortoiseAffected if A package name containing 'tortoiseforum' is found on the device
-
Identify installed version numberIn Settings > Apps > Tortoise Forum > App info > Version, or execute: adb shell dumpsys package <package_name> | grep versionNameAffected if The displayed version is exactly 3.5.16
-
Verify certificate validation implementationExtract and analyze the APK using static analysis tools (such as jadx or APK Analyzer). Examine the network communication code for SSL/TLS certificate validation. Look for implementations of checkServerTrusted or HostnameVerifier methods in classes handling HTTPS connections.Affected if Certificate validation methods are missing, return empty implementations, or are disabled (for example, a custom TrustManager that accepts all certificates)
-
Confirm vulnerability scopeCross-reference the exact version identified (3.5.16) with the affected product range (Exoticpetnetwork Tortoise Forum = 3.5.16)Affected if The installed version matches 3.5.16 and lacks proper X.509 certificate validation in the SSL/TLS handshake code
A defender is affected if the Tortoise Forum Android app version 3.5.16 is installed and the code does not perform proper X.509 certificate chain validation during SSL/TLS 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 chain validation using the Android Keystore system and trusted Certificate Authority stores, rejecting connections with invalid, self-signed, or mismatched certificates.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-6655 — 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-2014-6655 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