CVE-2018-14494
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 · uneditedVivotek FD8136 devices allow Remote Command Injection, related to BusyBox and wget. NOTE: the vendor sent a clarification on 2019-09-17 explaining that, although this CVE was first populated in July 2019, it is a historical vulnerability that does not apply to any current or recent Vivotek hardware or firmware
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 confidenceVivotek FD8136 network camera devices contain a Remote Command Injection vulnerability in the BusyBox wget component, allowing unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary commands with CVSS 9.8 critical severity.
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= 0301aCVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 camera's web interface or check the device documentation to confirm the model is Vivotek FD8136Affected if Device model is not FD8136 (different models may have different vulnerabilities)
-
Check the installed firmware versionLog into the camera's web interface and navigate to System > Firmware Upgrade, or use the camera's API/ONVIF interface to query the firmware versionAffected if Firmware version equals 0301a exactly (this is the specific affected version)
-
Verify BusyBox wget accessibilityAttempt to access the camera's CGI or API endpoints that invoke the BusyBox wget utility; if the device responds to network requests that trigger wget operations, the command injection point existsAffected if The camera has network-facing services that invoke wget and accepts user-supplied input into wget parameters
Device is affected if it is a Vivotek FD8136 running firmware version exactly 0301a and has network services that invoke the BusyBox wget component accessible to attackers
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 dataVerify current firmware version; if running historical firmware, update to current Vivotek firmware which the vendor confirms is not affected by this vulnerability.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-14494 — 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-2018-14494 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