CVE-2005-4684
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 · uneditedKonqueror can associate a cookie with multiple domains when the DNS resolver has a non-root domain in its search list, which allows remote attackers to trick a user into accepting a cookie for a hostname formed via search-list expansion of the hostname entered by the user, or steal a cookie for an expanded hostname, as demonstrated by an attacker who operates an ap1.com Internet web site to steal cookies associated with an ap1.com.example.com intranet web site.
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 confidenceKonqueror incorrectly associates cookies with multiple domains when the DNS resolver has a non-root domain in its search list. This allows remote attackers to steal cookies for expanded hostnames (e.g., an attacker at ap1.com can steal cookies meant for ap1.com.example.com) by exploiting DNS search-list expansion ambiguity in cookie domain validation.
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= 0.1= 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= 3.1CVSS 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
- 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 Konqueror versionRun 'konqueror --version' or check your package manager for installed kdebase or konqueror package versionAffected if The installed version matches any of these: 0.1, 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, or 3.1
-
Check DNS resolver search list configurationInspect /etc/resolv.conf and look for 'search' directives, or run 'nmcli dev show | grep DOMAIN' or 'systemd-resolve --status' depending on your systemAffected if A 'search' line contains one or more domain suffixes (non-root domains) in the DNS configuration
-
Verify if browsing occurs to untrusted external sitesReview user browsing habits or network proxy configurations to determine if Konqueror is used to access external untrusted websitesAffected if Users browse untrusted external websites while their DNS resolver search list includes internal domain suffixes that could be expanded
You are affected if Konqueror version is one of the listed versions AND your DNS resolver has a search list with domain suffixes, AND users browse untrusted external sites under these conditions.
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 dataAvoid using DNS search lists with ambiguous domain suffixes, or ensure users do not browse untrusted external sites while their DNS resolver is configured with internal domain suffixes that could be expanded.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-4684 — 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-2005-4684 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