CVE-2014-7486
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 Mitsubishi Road Assist (aka com.agero.mitsubishi) application 1.0 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 Mitsubishi Road Assist Android application 1.0 fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted communications by presenting fraudulent certificates. This enables credential theft, session hijacking, and data exfiltration since the app blindly accepts any certificate presented by remote 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= 1CVSS 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 Mitsubishi Road Assist is installedOn the Android device, go to Settings > Apps > Apps manager and search for 'Mitsubishi Road Assist' or 'Mitsubishicars', or use adb command: adb shell pm list packages | grep -i mitsubishiAffected if The package 'com.mitsubishicars.roadassist' or similar Mitsubishi Road Assist package is present on the device
-
Verify the installed versionIn Settings > Apps > Apps manager, tap on Mitsubishi Road Assist and check the Version field under App info, or use: adb shell dumpsys package com.mitsubishicars.roadassist | grep versionNameAffected if The version displayed is exactly 1.0 or version code 1
-
Confirm the app uses network communicationUse Android network monitoring: adb shell ss | grep -i roadassist, or check app permissions for INTERNET access in the app manifestAffected if The app has network/INTERNET permission and makes outbound connections
-
Inspect SSL/TLS handling in app trafficSet up a proxy such as Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP with an invalid/fraudulent SSL certificate and attempt to intercept traffic from the Mitsubishi Road Assist appAffected if The app successfully establishes SSL connections with the invalid proxy certificate, indicating certificate validation is bypassed
If the Mitsubishi Road Assist app version 1.0 is installed and accepts invalid SSL certificates during traffic inspection, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 full certificate chain verification and hostname validation. Consider certificate pinning for added security.
- Consultation3.0 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 $5,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-7486 — 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-2014-7486 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