CVE-2014-6756
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 Reddit Aww (aka org.biais.redditawww) application 1.2.1 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 Reddit Aww Android application 1.2.1 fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted communications 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= 1.2.1CVSS 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.
-
Verify Reddit Aww version 1.2.1 is installedOn the Android device, navigate to Settings > Apps > Reddit Aww and check the version number, or use 'adb shell pm list packages' and 'adb shell dumpsys package com.reddit.aww' to confirm version 1.2.1Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.2.1
-
Confirm app has network permissionsInspect the AndroidManifest.xml for the INTERNET permission using 'aapt dump badging reddit_aww.apk' or by checking app settings under PermissionsAffected if The app holds INTERNET permission and makes outbound network connections
-
Inspect SSL certificate validation implementationDecompile the APK (using apktool) and examine the smali source code for custom TrustManager or HostnameVerifier implementations. Look for classes that override validateServerCertificate or similar methods with empty or permissive logicAffected if Code contains a custom TrustManager that accepts all certificates or a HostnameVerifier that always returns true
-
Check network security configurationExtract and inspect res/xml/network_security_config.xml (or the lack thereof) in the decompiled APK. Also examine any WebView configurations that may disable certificate validationAffected if Network security config is missing, allows cleartext traffic, or contains debug-overrides that bypass certificate validation
You are affected if Reddit Aww version 1.2.1 is installed and the app makes network requests with SSL/TLS validation disabled in the application code or configuration.
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/TLS certificate validation in the application code, including verification of the certificate chain against trusted Certificate Authorities and optionally implementing certificate pinning for added security.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-6756 — 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-2014-6756 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