CVE-2004-0870
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 · uneditedKDE Konqueror does not prevent cookies that are sent over an insecure channel (HTTP) from also being sent over a secure channel (HTTPS/SSL) in the same domain, which could allow remote attackers to steal cookies and conduct unauthorized activities, aka "Cross Security Boundary Cookie Injection."
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 confidenceKDE Konqueror fails to enforce the secure flag on cookies, allowing cookies set or transmitted over an insecure HTTP channel to also be sent over a secure HTTPS/SSL channel within the same domain. This enables attackers who can intercept HTTP traffic to steal session cookies and impersonate users over HTTPS connections.
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= 2.1.1= 2.1.2= 2.2.1= 2.2.2= 3.0= 3.0.1= 3.0.2= 3.0.3= 3.0.5= 3.0.5b= 3.1= 3.1.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/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 Konqueror versionRun 'konqueror --version' or 'kfmclient --version' from command line, or check via package manager (dpkg -l | grep konqueror on Debian/Ubuntu, rpm -qa | grep konqueror on Red Hat/CentOS)Affected if The version displayed matches any of these: 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 3.0, 3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.0.3, 3.0.5, 3.0.5b, 3.1, or 3.1.1
-
Verify Konqueror is being actively usedConfirm Konqueror browser is present on the system and accessible via command 'which konqueror' or by locating the binary in /usr/bin/konqueror or /usr/local/bin/konquerorAffected if Konqueror executable exists and the version from step 1 is one of the affected versions listed above
-
Check cookie handling behaviorOpen Konqueror, navigate to an HTTP website that sets a cookie (without the Secure flag), then manually visit the HTTPS version of the same domain and inspect whether the cookie is sent in the requestAffected if Cookies set over HTTP are transmitted to the HTTPS version of the same domain, demonstrating the secure flag is not being enforced
A user is affected if they have Konqueror version 2.1.1 through 3.1.1 installed and actively using it, as these versions do not enforce the Secure flag on cookies, allowing cookies from HTTP sessions to be sent over HTTPS connections.
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 dataConfigure Konqueror to enforce cookie security boundaries by rejecting cookies from insecure origins or implementing proper secure flag handling. Alternatively, migrate to a modern browser with proper cookie security model.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2004-0870 — 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-2004-0870 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