CVE-2014-7544
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 Secret City - Motion Comic (aka me.narr8.android.serial.the_secret_city) application 2.1.7 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 Secret City - Motion Comic Android application 2.1.7 fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept communications by presenting forged certificates. This enables credential theft, session hijacking, and data exfiltration through a compromised network path.
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= 2.1.7CVSS 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 application packageRun 'adb shell pm list packages | grep -i secret' or 'adb shell pm list packages | grep -i narr8' to find the package name for The Secret City - Motion Comic applicationAffected if No matching package is found (the app is not installed)
-
Retrieve the installed versionRun 'adb shell pm dump <package_name> | grep versionName' replacing <package_name> with the package identified in step 1, or inspect the APK file metadata using 'aapt dump badging <apk_file> | grep versionName'Affected if The version displayed is 2.1.7 exactly
-
Check for insecure SSL implementation in the app codeDecompile the APK using 'apktool d <apk_file>' and search the resulting smali or decompiled Java files for patterns indicating disabled certificate validation, such as: custom TrustManager implementations that return true for all certificates, 'ALLOW_ALL_HOSTNAME_VERIFIER', 'setHostnameVerifier' with insecure verifiers, or TrustManager implementations that throw no exceptionsAffected if Code contains any of these patterns: a TrustManager that accepts all certificates without validation, hostname verifier set to ALLOW_ALL, or a check that bypasses certificate validation entirely
A user is affected if they have version 2.1.7 of the Narr8 Secret City Motion Comic app installed AND the app code contains insecure SSL certificate validation that accepts forged certificates, which can be confirmed through code inspection or successful MITM testing on a controlled network.
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 dataUpdate the application to implement proper SSL/TLS certificate validation using a correctly configured TrustManager, preferably with certificate pinning for sensitive endpoints, and rebuild/re-release the application.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-7544 — 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-2014-7544 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