CVE-2009-1474
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 · uneditedThe ATEN KH1516i IP KVM switch with firmware 1.0.063 and the KN9116 IP KVM switch with firmware 1.1.104 do not (1) encrypt mouse events, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to perform mouse operations on machines connected to the switch by injecting network traffic; and do not (2) set the secure flag for the session cookie in an https session, which makes it easier for remote attackers to capture this cookie by intercepting its transmission within an http session.
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 confidenceThe ATEN KH1516i and KN9116 IP KVM switches fail to encrypt mouse events during KVM sessions, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to inject malicious mouse commands into machines connected to the switch. Additionally, the devices do not set the secure flag on session cookies during HTTPS sessions, enabling attackers to capture cookies transmitted over unencrypted HTTP and hijack user sessions.
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= 1.0.063= 1.1.104CVSS 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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 KVM switch modelAccess the device web interface or check the physical device label to confirm the model is either KH1516i or KN9116Affected if The model is KH1516i or KN9116 and the version matches step 2
-
Check the firmware versionLog into the KVM switch web interface and navigate to System Information or Firmware Upgrade page to view the installed firmware versionAffected if Firmware version is exactly 1.0.063 on KH1516i or exactly 1.1.104 on KN9116
-
Inspect session cookies for the Secure flagLog into the device web interface over HTTPS, open browser developer tools (F12), go to Application/Storage tab, expand Cookies, select the device domain, and examine each cookie for the Secure attribute in the Set-Cookie headerAffected if Session cookies are set without the Secure flag even when accessed over HTTPS
The device is affected if it is a KH1516i running firmware 1.0.063 or a KN9116 running firmware 1.1.104, or if session cookies lack the Secure flag during HTTPS sessions.
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 dataContact ATEN for firmware updates that address the unencrypted mouse events and ensure session cookies are configured with the secure flag; in the interim, isolate KVM switch management networks and enforce HTTPS-only access to prevent cookie interception.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-1474 — 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-2009-1474 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