CVE-2014-6790
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 INVEX (aka com.mobilatolye.keyinternet) application 1.0.2 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 INVEX Android application version 1.0.2 fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers during HTTPS connections, allowing attackers to perform man-in-the-middle attacks by presenting fraudulent certificates and intercepting sensitive data transmitted between the app and backend servers.
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= 1.0.2CVSS 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 the installed app versionCheck the application version in the Android device settings under Apps > Invex > Version, or inspect the APK file's versionName and versionCode attributesAffected if version is 1.0.2 exactly
-
Confirm the app uses network communicationReview the app's AndroidManifest.xml for INTERNET permission and check if the app connects to backend serversAffected if the app has INTERNET permission and makes outbound connections to remote servers
-
Inspect SSL certificate validation implementationAnalyze the app's code or APK for custom TrustManager implementations, SSLContext usage, or lack of proper certificate validation in HTTPS connection handling. Look for classes that handle HTTPS connections without proper X.509 validationAffected if the code shows custom or no TrustManager, or usesHostnameVerifier/TrustManager that does not validate certificates properly, or uses ALLOW_ALL_HOSTNAME_VERIFIER
-
Test for certificate validation failureUse a proxy tool with a self-signed certificate to intercept traffic from the app. If the app accepts the invalid certificate and completes connections without warning, certificate validation is not properly implementedAffected if the app accepts invalid or self-signed certificates during MITM testing
The environment is affected if the Invex Android app version 1.0.2 is installed and it makes HTTPS connections without proper X.509 certificate validation, which can be confirmed by code analysis or MITM testing with an invalid certificate.
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 Android's standard TrustManager or employ certificate pinning to ensure the app only trusts specific, pre-defined certificates or CAs.
- 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-2014-6790 — 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-2014-6790 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