dbcve.org
Flying FoxApplication · Chillingo

CVE-2014-7700

MEDIUM · 5.4 CVSS v2.0 Published 2014-10-21
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
The Flying Fox (aka com.chillingo.slyfoxfree.android.aja) application 1.0.0 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 confidence

The Flying Fox Android application 1.0.0 fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept and modify encrypted traffic by presenting crafted fake certificates. This enables sensitive information disclosure through impersonation of legitimate SSL servers.

MitigationImplement proper SSL certificate validation in the application, preferably through certificate pinning or ensuring the app correctly validates the entire certificate chain against a trusted root CA.

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
Flying FoxApplication
Affected:= 1.0.0

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the installed Flying Fox version
    On the Android device, go to Settings > Apps > Flying Fox (or Chillingo Flying Fox), then check the Version information under App Info. Alternatively, use ADB command: adb shell pm list packages | grep -i flyingfox, then adb shell dumpsys package [packagename] | grep versionName
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.0.0 (the affected version)
  2. Confirm the app has network connectivity
    Check if the Flying Fox app has internet permissions by reviewing the app manifest (AndroidManifest.xml) for android.permission.INTERNET or android.permission.ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE. On device, use: adb shell dumpsys package [packagename] | grep -i permission
    Affected if The app has network permissions, making it capable of making SSL connections that could be intercepted
  3. Verify SSL interception is possible
    Configure a proxy with a self-signed certificate (such as Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, or mitmproxy) on the same network as the Android device. Install the proxy CA certificate as trusted on the device. Launch Flying Fox and attempt to intercept traffic through the proxy
    Affected if The app successfully connects through the proxy without certificate validation errors, demonstrating that it does not validate X.509 certificates (vulnerable to MITM)
  4. Inspect certificate validation behavior
    Use dynamic analysis tools like AndroBugs, MobSF, or DroidBot to instrument the app and observe SSL validation behavior. Specifically look for custom TrustManager implementations or absence of proper X509TrustManager usage in the app's SSL handshake code
    Affected if The app uses a custom TrustManager that accepts all certificates or has no certificate validation logic, confirming the vulnerability exists

A user is affected if they have Flying Fox version 1.0.0 installed and the app successfully proxies SSL traffic without certificate validation errors, demonstrating the missing X.509 certificate validation.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement proper SSL certificate validation in the application, preferably through certificate pinning or ensuring the app correctly validates the entire certificate chain against a trusted root CA.

Fix this in Flying Fox Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-7700 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2014-7700 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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