CVE-2009-1241
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 · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in ClamAV before 0.95 allows remote attackers to bypass detection of malware via a modified RAR archive.
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 confidenceClamAV versions prior to 0.95 contain a vulnerability in their RAR archive parsing that allows attackers to craft modified RAR archives containing malware that evade detection by the antivirus engine. The vulnerability is in the unspecified RAR archive handling logic that fails to properly analyze malformed or specially crafted RAR files.
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< 0.95CVSS 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.
-
Check installed ClamAV versionRun 'clamd --version' or 'clamscan --version' to retrieve the exact version number of ClamAV installed on the systemAffected if The version displayed is less than 0.95 (for example, 0.94, 0.94.1, 0.94.2, etc.)
-
Verify RAR archive support is enabledCheck if ClamAV has RAR detection enabled by examining the clamd.conf or freshclam.conf files for 'ScanRAR' directive, or test by attempting to scan a benign RAR fileAffected if RAR scanning is enabled (ScanRAR is set to yes or RAR files are being parsed) on a ClamAV version prior to 0.95
-
Confirm RAR utility availabilityVerify that the 'unrar' utility is installed on the system and accessible to ClamAV, as ClamAV relies on it to decompress RAR archives for scanningAffected if The unrar binary exists and ClamAV version is below 0.95, meaning malformed RAR files could bypass detection
A user is affected if they are running ClamAV version 0.94.x or earlier with RAR archive scanning enabled, as specially crafted RAR files containing malware could evade detection.
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 data0.95
Upgrade ClamAV to version 0.95 or later, which contains the fix for RAR archive detection bypass. Ensure signature databases are also updated after the upgrade.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-1241 — 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-2009-1241 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