CVE-2014-6795
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 Beekeeping Forum (aka com.tapatalk.supporttapatalkcomxxxxx) application 3.9.15 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 Beekeeping Forum Android application (com.tapatalk.supporttapatalkcomxxxxx) version 3.9.15 fails to validate X.509 certificates when establishing SSL/TLS connections. This allows an attacker positioned on the network path to intercept and modify traffic by presenting a fraudulent certificate, enabling man-in-the-middle attacks that can expose sensitive user data.
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= 3.9.15CVSS 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 Beekeeping Forum app is installedOn Android devices, check installed applications for 'com.tapatalk.supporttapatalkcomxxxxx' using package manager: 'adb shell pm list packages | grep supporttapatalkcom' or manually via Settings > AppsAffected if The package com.tapatalk.supporttapatalkcomxxxxx is found on any managed device
-
Check installed application versionRun 'adb shell dumpsys package com.tapatalk.supporttapatalkcomxxxxx' and look for versionName and versionCode in the output, or check via device Settings > Apps > Beekeeping Forum > VersionAffected if versionName shows 3.9.15 or versionCode corresponds to release 3.9.15
-
Confirm network traffic exposureSince the vulnerability affects all SSL/TLS connections made by the app, verify that users access the forum over network connections (WiFi or cellular) - no additional configuration check needed as the flawed validation is built into the app codeAffected if The app is used to connect to the forum over any network
If the Beekeeping Forum Android app version 3.9.15 (package com.tapatalk.supporttapatalkcomxxxxx) is installed on any device, the device is vulnerable to MITM attacks due to missing X.509 certificate validation.
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 X.509 certificate chain validation in the application's network layer, preferably using certificate pinning for the known server certificates to prevent MITM attacks.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,192.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-6795 — 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-2014-6795 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