CVE-2017-14114
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 · uneditedRTPproxy through 2.2.alpha.20160822 has a NAT feature that results in not properly determining the IP address and port number of the legitimate recipient of RTP traffic, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information or cause a denial of service (communication outage) via crafted RTP packets.
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 confidenceRTPproxy's NAT feature improperly determines the IP address and port number of the legitimate RTP traffic recipient. Attackers can exploit this by sending crafted RTP packets to intercept media streams (sensitive information disclosure) or cause communication outages via traffic redirection.
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<= 2.2CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
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 RTPproxy versionRun 'rtpproxy -V' or 'rtpproxy -version' to retrieve the installed RTPproxy version numberAffected if The displayed version is 2.2 or lower (any version <= 2.2)
-
Locate RTPproxy configuration fileCheck common locations such as /etc/rtpproxy.conf, /usr/local/etc/rtpproxy.conf, or the configuration file specified at startupAffected if A configuration file exists and contains NAT-related settings
-
Verify NAT traversal feature is enabledInspect the configuration file for NAT-related directives such as 'nat', 'natDetection', 'externalIP', or similar NAT traversal parametersAffected if Any NAT feature or NAT detection setting is present and enabled in the configuration
-
Check active RTPproxy invocationReview running processes or startup scripts to determine if RTPproxy was started with NAT-related flags (such as -n, -m, or external IP parameters)Affected if RTPproxy is running with NAT traversal enabled via command-line arguments
You are affected if RTPproxy version is 2.2 or lower AND NAT traversal feature is enabled in configuration or startup parameters.
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 RTPproxy to a version beyond 2.2.alpha.20160822 that contains the fix, and review NAT traversal configuration settings to ensure proper validation of RTP endpoint mappings.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-14114 — 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-2017-14114 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