OpenjdkApplication · Sun
CVE-2009-0794
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 · uneditedInteger overflow in the PulseAudioTargetDataL class in src/java/org/classpath/icedtea/pulseaudio/PulseAudioTargetDataLine.java in Pulse-Java, as used in OpenJDK 1.6.0.0 and other products, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (applet crash) via a crafted Pulse Audio source data line.
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 · moderate confidenceAn integer overflow vulnerability exists in the PulseAudioTargetDataL class in Pulse-Java's PulseAudioTargetDataLine.java. The overflow occurs when processing Pulse Audio source data lines, allowing a remote attacker to trigger a denial of service by causing the applet to crash via specially crafted audio data that overflows an integer calculation.
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
OpenjdkApplication
= 1.6.0.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 installed Java versionRun 'java -version' or check /usr/lib/jvm/ for OpenJDK packagesAffected if Version reported is exactly 1.6.0.0 (Sun OpenJDK)
-
Check for pulse-java packageOn Linux, run 'dpkg -l | grep pulse-java' or 'rpm -qa | grep pulse-java' depending on package managerAffected if The pulse-java package containing PulseAudioTargetDataLine.java classes is installed
-
Verify PulseAudio is activeRun 'pactl info' or check if PulseAudio daemon is running with 'ps aux | grep pulseaudio'Affected if PulseAudio sound server is running and available to Java applications
-
Confirm Java audio uses PulseAudioCheck Java sound configuration files in /etc/java-*-openjdk/ or run 'java -Djdk.audio.sound= PulseAudioScanner' to probe audio subsystemAffected if Java is configured to use PulseAudio as the audio device provider
-
Determine if running Java appletsCheck browser plugin configuration or look for appletviewer usage; examine if web browsers have Java plugin enabledAffected if Java applets are enabled and can process audio data lines
A user is affected if running Sun OpenJDK 1.6.0.0 with pulse-java integration installed, PulseAudio active, and Java applets processing audio input are in use.
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 dataUpdate to a patched version of the IcedTea/OpenJDK pulse-java integration that includes proper bounds checking on the integer calculations in the PulseAudioTargetDataL class. Alternatively, disable PulseAudio support in Java applets if not required.
Fix this in Openjdk
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 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 $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0794 — 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-2009-0794 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