CVE-2008-2801
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 before 2.0.0.15 and SeaMonkey before 1.1.10 do not properly implement JAR signing, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via (1) injection of JavaScript into documents within a JAR archive or (2) a JAR archive that uses relative URLs to JavaScript files.
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 confidenceMozilla Firefox before 2.0.0.15 and SeaMonkey before 1.1.10 have a flaw in JAR archive handling where the browser fails to properly validate JAR signatures. This allows attackers to inject malicious JavaScript into documents within a JAR archive or use relative URLs to JavaScript files within the JAR, leading to arbitrary code execution.
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<= 2.0.0.14= 2.0= 2.0.0.1= 2.0.0.2= 2.0.0.3= 2.0.0.4= 2.0.0.5= 2.0.0.6= 2.0.0.7= 2.0.0.8= 2.0.0.9= 2.0.0.10<= 1.1.9= 1.1= 1.1.2= 1.1.3= 1.1.4= 1.1.5= 1.1.6= 1.1.7= 1.1.8CVSS 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
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 the browser productOpen the browser and look at the application name in the title bar or menu, or check Add/Remove Programs (Windows), Applications folder (Mac), or package manager (Linux)Affected if The product is Mozilla Firefox or SeaMonkey
-
Check Firefox versionIn Firefox, go to Help > About Mozilla Firefox, or type 'about:config' in the address bar and look for the version entry, or run 'firefox -v' from command lineAffected if Version is 2.0.0.14 or lower, or any 2.0.x version from 2.0 through 2.0.0.10 (2.0.0.11-14 also affected)
-
Check SeaMonkey versionIn SeaMonkey, go to Help > About SeaMonkey, or run 'seamonkey -v' from command lineAffected if Version is 1.1.9 or lower, or any 1.1.x version from 1.1 through 1.1.8 (1.1.9 also affected)
-
Confirm JAR handling is in useThis vulnerability affects JAR archive handling which is a built-in feature used when opening or caching web content from JAR archives. No specific config change needed as this is default browser behavior.Affected if The browser processes web content from JAR archives (standard web browsing behavior)
You are affected if you run Firefox 2.0.x up to 2.0.0.14 or SeaMonkey 1.1.x up to 1.1.9 and browse websites that serve content via JAR archives.
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 affected browsers to Firefox 2.0.0.15+, SeaMonkey 1.1.10+, or later stable versions. For enterprise environments, test browser updates in a staging environment before mass deployment to ensure compatibility with internal applications.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-2801 — 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 sources- secunia.com
- lists.opensuse.org
- rhn.redhat.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- security.gentoo.org
- slackware.com
- slackware.com
- sunsolve.sun.com
- wiki.rpath.com
- www.debian.org
- www.debian.org
- www.debian.org
- www.mandriva.com
- www.mozilla.org
- www.mozilla.org
- www.redhat.com
- www.redhat.com
- www.redhat.com
- www.securityfocus.com
- www.securityfocus.com
- www.securitytracker.com
- www.ubuntu.com
- www.vupen.com
- www.vupen.com
- bugzilla.mozilla.org
- bugzilla.mozilla.org
- bugzilla.mozilla.org
- issues.rpath.com
- oval.cisecurity.org
- www.redhat.com
- www.redhat.com
- www.redhat.com
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2008-2801 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