CVE-2007-6640
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 · uneditedCreammonkey 0.9 through 1.1 and GreaseKit 1.2 through 1.3 does not properly prevent access to dangerous functions, which allows remote attackers to read the configuration, modify the configuration, or send an HTTP request via the (1) GM_addStyle, (2) GM_log, (3) GM_openInTab, (4) GM_setValue, (5) GM_getValue, or (6) GM_xmlhttpRequest function within a web page on which a userscript is configured.
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 confidenceCreammonkey 0.9-1.1 and GreaseKit 1.2-1.3 are Safari browser extensions that provide Greasemonkey-like userscript functionality. These extensions fail to properly restrict access to privileged GM_ functions, allowing malicious web pages to invoke GM_xmlhttpRequest (to make arbitrary HTTP requests), GM_setValue/GM_getValue (to read/modify configuration), and other functions. This allows cross-origin attacks and configuration tampering.
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= 0.9= 1.0= 1.1= 1.2= 1.3CVSS 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 if Creammonkey or GreaseKit is installedOpen Safari, go to Safari menu > Preferences > Extensions (or Preferences > Extensions on older Safari versions). Look for extensions named 'Creammonkey' or 'GreaseKit' in the list.Affected if Either Creammonkey or GreaseKit appears in the Safari Extensions list
-
Determine the installed version of CreammonkeyIn Safari Extensions preferences, select Creammonkey and note the version number displayed. Compare against affected versions: 0.9, 1.0, or 1.1.Affected if The displayed version is 0.9, 1.0, or 1.1
-
Determine the installed version of GreaseKitIn Safari Extensions preferences, select GreaseKit and note the version number displayed. Compare against affected versions: 1.2 or 1.3.Affected if The displayed version is 1.2 or 1.3
-
Check if the extension is enabledIn Safari Extensions preferences, verify whether the extension checkbox is checked or the extension shows as 'Enabled'.Affected if The extension is installed and shows as enabled
The environment is affected if Creammonkey (versions 0.9-1.1) or GreaseKit (versions 1.2-1.3) is installed and enabled in Safari, as these versions allow web pages to invoke privileged GM_ functions without proper restrictions.
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 dataUsers should discontinue use of vulnerable versions. If continued use is required, implement a whitelist-based permission system to restrict which domains can access privileged functions, or migrate to maintained alternatives with proper sandboxing.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-6640 — 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-2007-6640 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