CVE-2014-8478
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 web server on Siemens SCALANCE X-300 switches with firmware before 4.0 and SCALANCE X 408 switches with firmware before 4.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (reboot) via malformed HTTP requests.
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 · moderate confidenceThe web server component in Siemens SCALANCE X-300 and X-408 switches contains a vulnerability where malformed HTTP requests can trigger a denial of service condition, causing the affected device to reboot. This is a remote, unauthenticated attack with low complexity.
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<= 3.9.3<= 3.9.3CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
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 device modelAccess the device management interface or check the physical device label to confirm the exact model is SCALANCE X-300 or X-408Affected if The device is a SCALANCE X-300 Series or X-408 switch
-
Check the installed firmware versionLog into the device web interface or CLI and navigate to the firmware version information section, typically found under System > General or in the startup bannerAffected if The firmware version is 3.9.3 or lower
-
Verify the web server is enabledAccess the device configuration and check the web server settings, usually under System > Services or Network > HTTP/HTTPSAffected if HTTP/HTTPS web server access is enabled on the device
-
Confirm remote web access is not filteredCheck if the device HTTP port (typically port 80) is accessible from untrusted networks, or review firewall rules protecting the deviceAffected if The device web interface is reachable from external networks without filtering
A user is affected if they operate a SCALANCE X-300 or X-408 switch running firmware version 3.9.3 or lower with the web server enabled and accessible.
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 dataUpgrade SCALANCE X-300 and X-408 firmware to version 4.0 or later. If immediate patching is not feasible, isolate affected devices behind firewalls or IDS/IPS systems capable of filtering malformed HTTP requests.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $4,896.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-8478 — 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-2014-8478 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