CVE-2014-6800
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 Bloom Township 206 (aka net.parentlink.bloom) application 4.0.500 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 Bloom Township 206 Android application version 4.0.500 fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted communications by presenting fraudulent certificates and harvest sensitive 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= 4.0.500CVSS 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 the installed version of the Bloom Township 206 appCheck the app version in Android Settings > Apps > Bloom Township 206, or inspect the APK file metadata using a package inspector toolAffected if The installed version is 4.0.500 exactly (the only affected version per the CVE)
-
Inspect SSL certificate validation implementation in app codeDecompile the APK and examine the network code for javax.net.ssl.TrustManager, X509TrustManager, or HostnameVerifier implementations to see if certificate chain validation is present and properly configuredAffected if The app code lacks proper X.509 certificate chain validation in its TrustManager or uses an empty/no-op trust manager that accepts all certificates
-
Check for insecure TrustManager configurationSearch the decompiled Java/Smali code for TrustManager initialization and verify whether it performs actual certificate validation or blindly accepts all certificatesAffected if The TrustManager is configured to accept all certificates without verification, or throws NoSuchAlgorithmException/not implemented exceptions
-
Verify HostnameVerifier implementationExamine any HostnameVerifier implementation to confirm it validates the server certificate matches the expected hostname, rather than always returning trueAffected if The HostnameVerifier is set to ALLOW_ALL_HOSTNAME_VERIFIER or equivalent bypass mechanism
A user is affected if they have version 4.0.500 of the Bloom Township 206 Android app installed, which contains insecure SSL certificate validation that does not properly verify X.509 certificate chains.
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, including certificate chain verification and optionally certificate pinning to ensure the app only trusts legitimate server certificates.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-6800 — 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-2014-6800 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