CVE-2009-1783
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 · uneditedMultiple FRISK Software F-Prot anti-virus products, including Antivirus for Exchange, Linux on IBM zSeries, Linux x86 File Servers, Linux x86 Mail Servers, Linux x86 Workstations, Solaris Mail Servers, Antivirus for Windows, and others, allow remote attackers to bypass malware detection via a crafted CAB 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 · moderate confidenceF-Prot anti-virus products fail to properly detect malicious code embedded within crafted CAB (Microsoft Cabinet) archive files, allowing malware to bypass scanner detection. This is a detection bypass vulnerability rather than 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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Check for F-Prot Antivirus installationLook for F-Prot processes running on the system (e.g., fpscan.exe, f-prot.exe, fprot.exe) using Task Manager or command: tasklist /FI "IMAGENAME eq f-prot*"Affected if Any F-Prot process is running
-
Check for F-Prot installation directorySearch for F-Prot installation folders in common locations: C:\Program Files\F-Prot, C:\Program Files (x86)\F-Prot, or use: dir /s /b "C:\Program Files\F-Prot*" 2>nulAffected if F-Prot installation directory exists on the system
-
Verify F-Prot service presenceCheck for F-Prot services using: sc query type= service state= all | findstr /i "f-prot" or check Windows Services for F-Prot entriesAffected if F-Prot service is registered on the system
-
Confirm specific F-Prot product variantIdentify which F-Prot product is installed: Antivirus, Aves, or Milter by checking installed programs via: reg query "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall" /s /f "F-Prot"Affected if Any of the three affected F-Prot products (Antivirus, Aves, or Milter) is listed as installed
If any F-Prot product (Antivirus, Aves, or Milter) is installed on the system, the detection bypass vulnerability applies because all versions of these products are affected by the CAB file scanning flaw.
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 F-Prot anti-virus products to latest definitions and verify malware detection functions correctly with CAB archives. Consider supplemental scanning or alternative AV solutions if patches are unavailable.
- 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-2009-1783 — 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-2009-1783 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