CVE-2015-2943
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 · uneditedHonda Moto LINC 1.6.1 does not verify SSL certificates.
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 confidenceHonda Moto LINC 1.6.1 mobile application fails to validate SSL/TLS certificates when establishing encrypted connections, allowing an attacker to perform man-in-the-middle attacks by presenting a fraudulent certificate. The application accepts connections without verifying the certificate chain, hostname, or authenticity.
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= 1.6.1CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 installed Honda Moto Linc versionCheck the application version in the device's app settings or package manager (e.g., Android Settings > Apps > Honda Moto Linc > Version, or iOS Settings > Honda Moto Linc).Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.6.1.
-
Verify SSL validation is disabled in network codeUse a decompiler (such as jadx for Android or Hopper for iOS) to inspect the application's network code. Search for SSL-related methods like TrustManager, hostnameVerifier, or check for custom X509TrustManager implementations that may be accepting all certificates.Affected if The code contains a TrustManager that accepts all certificates or skips hostname verification.
-
Test for proper certificate chain validationSet up a man-in-the-middle proxy (such as Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP) with an untrusted or self-signed certificate. Configure the device to trust the proxy CA, then attempt to intercept traffic from Honda Moto Linc.Affected if The application successfully connects and transmits data through the proxy without any certificate validation errors, indicating it does not verify the certificate chain.
-
Test for hostname validationWith the MITM proxy still in place, ensure the proxy presents a certificate with a hostname that does not match the target server. Observe whether the application rejects the connection.Affected if The application accepts connections even when the presented certificate hostname does not match the server's actual hostname.
The environment is affected if Honda Moto Linc version 1.6.1 is installed and the application accepts SSL/TLS connections without validating the certificate chain or hostname, which can be confirmed via MITM proxy testing.
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 dataImplement proper SSL certificate validation within the application, including chain-of-trust verification, hostname validation, and consideration of certificate pinning for sensitive operations.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-2943 — 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-2015-2943 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