CVE-2014-7354
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 Penumbra eMag (aka com.magzter.penumbraemag) application 3.0 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 Penumbra eMag Android application version 3.0 fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept traffic by presenting fraudulent certificates and obtain sensitive user information.
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= 3CVSS 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 installed application versionUse 'adb shell pm list packages | grep penumbra' to find the package, then 'adb shell dumpsys package <package_name>' to see the versionName attribute, or check in device Settings > Apps > Penumbra eMagAffected if Version displayed is exactly 3.0 or version code 3
-
Locate the application APK filePull the APK from the device using 'adb shell pm path com.magzter.penumbraemag' then 'adb pull <path_to_apk>' to a local workstation for analysisAffected if APK successfully retrieved for further static analysis
-
Inspect SSL validation implementationDecompile the APK using apktool or similar, then search the Smali or Java sources for TrustManager, X509TrustManager, or hostnameVerifier implementations. Look for custom implementations that accept all certificates or have empty validation logicAffected if Code contains a custom TrustManager that overrides checkServerTrusted() without proper certificate chain validation, or has disabled certificate validation (e.g., ALLOW_ALL_HOSTNAME_VERIFIER)
-
Check for certificate pinningSearch the decompiled sources for pinning-related code: look for 'pin', 'pinning', 'certificate', 'pinSet', or TrustManager implementations that reference pinned certificatesAffected if No certificate pinning mechanism is found and the app uses default Android networking
You are affected if the Penumbra eMag app version is 3.0 AND the APK analysis reveals insecure SSL certificate validation (no proper TrustManager implementation, no pinning, or disabled certificate checks).
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, typically by using certificate pinning or ensuring the default TrustManager properly validates the full certificate chain against trusted CAs.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-7354 — 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-2014-7354 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