CVE-2014-6666
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 Baglamukhi (aka com.wshribaglamukhiblog) application 0.1 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 Baglamukhi Android application version 0.1 fails to verify X.509 certificates when establishing SSL connections, enabling man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted traffic by presenting fraudulent certificates and steal sensitive information.
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= 0.1CVSS 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 Baglamukhi app is installedOn the Android device, go to Settings > Apps > Downloaded or All Apps and search for 'Baglamukhi' or 'Anusthanokarehasya'. Alternatively, use ADB command: `adb shell pm list packages | grep -i baglamukhi`Affected if The package named 'com.baglamukhi' or similar is present on the device
-
Verify the installed version is 0.1In Settings > Apps > Baglamukhi, scroll to the 'Version' or 'Version info' field. Or use ADB: `adb shell dumpsys package <package_name> | grep versionName`Affected if The version displayed is exactly 0.1
-
Confirm the app has network access permissionsCheck app permissions in Settings > Apps > Baglamukhi > Permissions. Look for 'Network communication' or 'Full network access' permission is granted.Affected if The app has network permissions enabled, allowing it to make SSL connections that would be vulnerable to MITM interception
-
Test SSL certificate validation behaviorSet up a proxy such as Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP on the network, configure the Android device to use the proxy, and attempt to intercept traffic from the Baglamukhi app. If the app accepts the proxy CA certificate without warning or failure, certificate validation is not functioning properly.Affected if The app successfully establishes connections through the interception proxy without certificate validation errors, confirming the X.509 verification flaw is present
A user is affected if they have version 0.1 of the Baglamukhi Android app installed and the app makes network connections, as the lack of X.509 certificate validation allows attackers to intercept encrypted traffic.
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 application, such as certificate pinning or full X.509 chain verification, to ensure the app only trusts legitimate server 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-2014-6666 — 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-2014-6666 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