CVE-2015-2674
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 · uneditedRestkit allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof TLS servers by leveraging use of the ssl.wrap_socket function in Python with the default CERT_NONE value for the cert_reqs argument.
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 confidenceRestkit uses Python's ssl.wrap_socket function with the default CERT_NONE value for the cert_reqs argument, which disables SSL certificate verification entirely. This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept TLS connections by presenting invalid or malicious certificates, since the client accepts any certificate without validation.
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 dataall 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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 Restkit installationRun 'pip show restkit' or check your Python dependencies (requirements.txt, setup.py, Pipfile) for the restkit packageAffected if Restkit is present in your environment
-
Locate SSL-enabled Restkit usageSearch your codebase for imports of restkit and its HTTP client modules (restkit.client, restkit.http), particularly where ssl or HTTPS connections are madeAffected if Your code uses Restkit to make HTTPS requests
-
Inspect SSL socket configurationSearch for ssl.wrap_socket calls within Restkit source or your usage of Restkit's HTTP client, and examine the cert_reqs parameterAffected if ssl.wrap_socket is called with cert_reqs set to CERT_NONE or not explicitly set (defaulting to CERT_NONE)
-
Check Restkit SSL optionsReview any Restkit configuration files or connection options your code passes when creating HTTP clients. Look for parameters controlling certificate verificationAffected if Certificate verification is disabled or not explicitly enabled in Restkit SSL options
You are affected if your environment uses Restkit to make HTTPS connections and the SSL certificate verification is disabled (cert_reqs set to CERT_NONE or not set), allowing any certificate to be accepted.
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 dataChange the cert_reqs argument to CERT_REQUIRED and provide a valid CA bundle path to enable proper SSL certificate validation. Verify that connections are rejected when presented with invalid or self-signed certificates.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-2674 — 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-2015-2674 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