Gluster Storage Management ConsoleApplication · Redhat
CVE-2014-8177
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 Red Hat gluster-swift package, as used in Red Hat Gluster Storage (formerly Red Hat Storage Server), allows remote authenticated users to bypass the max_meta_count constraint via multiple crafted requests which exceed the limit when combined.
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 gluster-swift component in Red Hat Gluster Storage fails to enforce the max_meta_count constraint across multiple HTTP requests. The limit is only enforced per-request, allowing authenticated users to send multiple crafted requests where each stays under the limit but the combined metadata exceeds the intended maximum, bypassing the security control.
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
Gluster Storage Management ConsoleApplication
= 3.1
Gluster Storage ServerApplication
= 3.1
Storage Native ClientApplication
all versionsCVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 gluster-swift component is deployedCheck for presence of gluster-swift package or service. On Red Hat systems: rpm -qa | grep -i gluster-swift. Also check for swift proxy server configuration files in /etc/swift/Affected if gluster-swift is installed and the swift proxy service is running
-
Locate the max_meta_count configurationSearch for max_meta_count in /etc/swift/ directory: grep -r 'max_meta_count' /etc/swift/Affected if max_meta_count is configured in swift proxy server settings
-
Verify if cross-request metadata accumulation is enforcedReview the gluster-swift middleware configuration and proxy-server.conf to determine if any mechanism exists to track cumulative metadata across multiple requests from the same sessionAffected if The configuration only enforces max_meta_count per-request without session-level accumulation tracking
-
Check if using affected product versionsVerify installed version: rpm -qa | grep -E 'glusterfs-server|glusterfs-management|gluster-storage-native' and compare to version 3.1 for Management Console and Server, or confirm Native Client is in useAffected if Running Redhat Gluster Storage Management Console 3.1, Server 3.1, or any version of Redhat Storage Native Client with gluster-swift enabled
You are affected if gluster-swift component is deployed and the max_meta_count constraint is only enforced per-request without tracking cumulative metadata across multiple requests from the same authenticated session.
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 dataApply vendor patches for Red Hat Gluster Storage. As a compensating control, implement session-level request rate limiting or monitoring to detect anomalous metadata accumulation patterns.
Fix this in Gluster Storage Management Console
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2014-8177 — 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-2014-8177 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