CVE-2014-6721
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 Pharmaguideline (aka com.pharmaguideline) application 1.2.0 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 Pharmaguideline Android app version 1.2.0 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 enables credential theft, session hijacking, and data exfiltration.
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= 1.2.0CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Confirm Pharmaguideline app is installedOpen Android Settings > Apps > find 'Pharmaguideline' in the app list, or check the app drawer on the deviceAffected if The app is present on the device
-
Identify installed app versionIn Android Settings > Apps > Pharmaguideline, view the 'Version' or 'Version info' field under App infoAffected if The version shown is exactly 1.2.0 (no other version numbers)
-
Verify certificate validation is missingUse a network proxy tool (like Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP) configured on the device. Attempt to intercept HTTPS traffic from the app using an invalid certificate. Observe if the app accepts the invalid certificate and completes the connection.Affected if The app connects successfully to the server through the proxy despite the invalid certificate, indicating no SSL validation is performed
-
Inspect app for TrustManager configurationDecompile the APK using tools like apktool, then review Smali/Java code in the network-related classes for custom TrustManager implementations that skip chain validation, or for missing hostname verification callsAffected if The code contains a TrustManager that unconditionally accepts all certificates (such as a custom TrustManager returning true for checkServerTrusted without proper validation), or lacks hostname verification logic
You are affected if the Pharmaguideline app version 1.2.0 is installed and the app accepts invalid SSL certificates during network traffic inspection, indicating the certificate validation flaw is present.
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 using a correctly configured TrustManager that verifies the certificate chain, and add hostname verification using methods like URLHostnameVerifier or HttpsURLConnection's default validation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-6721 — 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-2014-6721 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