CVE-2007-1970
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 · uneditedMozilla Firefox does not warn the user about HTTP elements on an HTTPS page when the HTTP elements are dynamically created by a delayed document.write, which allows remote attackers to supply unauthenticated content and conduct phishing attacks.
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 confidenceFirefox fails to warn users when HTTP resources are dynamically injected into an HTTPS page via delayed document.write(). This mixed-content bypass allows attackers to insert unauthenticated content (scripts, images, iframes) onto what appears to be a secure page, enabling phishing and man-in-the-middle attacks.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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 Firefox versionGo to Help > About Firefox or navigate to about:support to view the installed version numberAffected if The version is an older release that predates mixed-content protections (compare your version to release notes for when this issue was addressed)
-
Locate HTTPS pages using document.write()Search source code or use browser developer tools to inspect network activity on HTTPS pages for any document.write() callsAffected if An HTTPS page executes document.write() that injects resources from HTTP (non-secure) URLs
-
Inspect dynamic script injectionsUse browser developer tools Console and Network panels to monitor when scripts are loaded after page load completesAffected if Scripts or other active content from HTTP sources are injected into an HTTPS page after the page has finished loading
-
Check for mixed content warningsObserve whether Firefox displays any security warnings when loading an HTTPS page with HTTP resourcesAffected if No mixed-content warning appears despite HTTP resources being present on an HTTPS page
-
Review Content Security Policy headersInspect HTTP response headers on HTTPS pages for CSP directives such as upgrade-insecure-requests or block-all-mixed-contentAffected if CSP headers are absent and the page loads HTTP content without blocking
A user is affected if they run an older Firefox version and their HTTPS pages contain or dynamically inject HTTP resources via document.write(), allowing unauthenticated content to appear within a secure context.
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 dataEnsure all resources on HTTPS pages are served over HTTPS; deploy Content Security Policy (CSP) with 'upgrade-insecure-requests' or 'block-all-mixed-content' directives; upgrade to modern Firefox versions which have stricter mixed-content handling.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-1970 — 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-2007-1970 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