CVE-2014-7242
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 SumaHo application 3.0.0 and earlier for Android and the SumaHo "driving capability" diagnosis result transmission application 1.2.2 and earlier for Android allow man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information by leveraging failure to verify SSL/TLS server certificates.
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 SumaHo Android applications fail to validate SSL/TLS server certificates, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept sensitive data by impersonating legitimate servers. The applications do not properly verify the authenticity of the server's certificate chain, enabling credential theft and data interception.
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<= 3.0.0<= 1.2.2CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 affected applications are installedCheck the Android device for installed apps named 'Ms Ins Sumaho' or 'Ms Ins Sumaho Driving Capability Diagnosis' using package manager: adb shell pm list packages | grep -i sumahoAffected if Either application is present on the device
-
Determine installed version of Ms Ins SumahoRun: adb shell dumpsys package com.example.sumaho (replace with actual package name if different) and look for versionName in the outputAffected if Version is 3.0.0 or lower
-
Determine installed version of Ms Ins Sumaho Driving Capability DiagnosisRun: adb shell dumpsys package com.example.sumaho.driving (replace with actual package name if different) and look for versionName in the outputAffected if Version is 1.2.2 or lower
-
Inspect application APK for improper certificate validationDecompile the APK using apktool and examine the smali code or Java source for TrustManager implementations. Search for classes that implement X509TrustManager but perform no actual validation (empty checkServerTrusted methods or always return without error)Affected if Custom TrustManager exists but does not properly validate the certificate chain against trusted CAs
-
Check for absence of certificate pinningExamine the application code for certificate pinning implementations - search for 'pin', 'pinning', 'CertificatePinner', or key hash validation in network-related classesAffected if No certificate pinning mechanism is found in the application code
If either app is installed at or below the affected version and lacks proper certificate validation in its TrustManager or certificate pinning, the device is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks.
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 dataThe application must implement proper SSL/TLS certificate validation, preferably through certificate pinning or a properly configured TrustManager that validates certificates against trusted Certificate Authorities.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-7242 — 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-2014-7242 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