CVE-2014-8628
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 · uneditedMemory leak in PolarSSL before 1.2.12 and 1.3.x before 1.3.9 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via a large number of crafted X.509 certificates. NOTE: this identifier has been SPLIT per ADT3 due to different affected versions. See CVE-2014-9744 for the ClientHello message issue.
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 confidenceMemory leak vulnerability in PolarSSL cryptographic library versions before 1.2.12 and 1.3.x before 1.3.9. Remote attackers can trigger the leak by sending a large number of specially crafted X.509 certificates, causing excessive memory consumption leading to denial of service.
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<= 1.2.11= 1.3.0= 1.3.1= 1.3.2= 1.3.3= 1.3.4= 1.3.5= 1.3.6= 1.3.7= 1.3.8CVSS 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 PolarSSL versionCheck the library file version: run `strings libpolarssl.so 2>/dev/null | grep -i "PolarSSL"` or check the library header via `grep -r "POLARSSL_VERSION" /usr/include/polarssl/ 2>/dev/null`. If using an application, run `ldd <application_binary> | grep -i polar` to find the linked library, then check that library's version.Affected if Version is 1.2.11 or earlier, or any version from 1.3.0 through 1.3.8
-
Confirm X.509 certificate processing is in useReview application configuration or code to verify it parses or validates X.509 certificates. Look for calls to x509parse_crt, x509parse_crtfile, or similar x509_* functions from the PolarSSL API.Affected if The application or service uses PolarSSL to parse X.509 certificates from untrusted sources such as client certificates or received certificates in TLS connections
-
Monitor memory during certificate operationsObserve memory usage of the process handling certificates. Use tools like `ps aux` or memory profiling during certificate-heavy operations. The leak manifests as growing memory consumption proportional to the number of certificates processed.Affected if Memory continuously increases without release during repeated certificate processing, indicating the leak is triggered
You are affected if your PolarSSL version is 1.2.11 or earlier, or 1.3.0-1.3.8, AND your application uses PolarSSL to process X.509 certificates from remote or untrusted sources.
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 PolarSSL to version 1.2.12 or later (1.3 branch) or 1.3.9 or later to resolve the memory leak. If upgrade is not immediately feasible, implement rate limiting on certificate processing and monitor memory usage.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-8628 — 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-2014-8628 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