CVE-2002-2125
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 · uneditedInternet Explorer 6.0 does not warn users when an expired certificate authority (CA) certificate is submitted to the user and a newer CA certificate is in the user's local repository, which could allow remote attackers to decrypt web sessions via a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack.
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 confidenceInternet Explorer 6.0 fails to warn users when presented with an expired Certificate Authority (CA) certificate while a newer valid CA certificate exists in the user's local certificate repository. This allows an attacker performing a man-in-the-middle attack to present an expired certificate and decrypt encrypted web sessions.
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= 6.0= 6.0.2600= 6.0.2800.1106CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 Internet Explorer versionOpen Internet Explorer, click Help, then About Internet Explorer. Note the version and build number displayed.Affected if The version shows 6.0 with build 2600 or 2800.1106 exactly.
-
Check IE version via registryOpen regedit and navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer. Look for the Version string value.Affected if The Version value matches 6.0.2600.0000 or 6.0.2800.1106.
-
Verify Windows version contextCheck Windows version by typing winver in Run dialog. IE 6.0.2600 typically shipped with Windows XP SP1, and 6.0.2800.1106 with Windows XP SP2.Affected if Running the exact IE6 builds 2600 or 2800.1106 on any Windows version.
You are affected if Internet Explorer 6.0 is installed with build version exactly 6.0.2600 or 6.0.2800.1106 and is used for browsing HTTPS sites.
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 from Internet Explorer 6.0 to a modern browser with proper certificate validation, or ensure certificate revocation checking and warning mechanisms are enabled in newer Internet Explorer versions.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-2125 — 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-2002-2125 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