CVE-2009-2058
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 · uneditedApple Safari before 3.2.2 uses the HTTP Host header to determine the context of a document provided in a (1) 4xx or (2) 5xx CONNECT response from a proxy server, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary web script by modifying this CONNECT response, aka an "SSL tampering" attack.
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 confidenceApple Safari before 3.2.2 incorrectly uses the HTTP Host header from proxy server CONNECT responses to determine the security context of error documents (4xx/5xx responses). This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to inject arbitrary web script by modifying the CONNECT response, enabling an SSL tampering attack where malicious JavaScript executes in the context of a trusted site.
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<= 3.2.2CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/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 Safari versionOn macOS: Safari > About Safari. On Windows: Help > About Safari. Compare the version number to 3.2.2.Affected if Version is 3.2.2 or earlier (e.g., 3.2.1, 3.2, 3.1.x, etc.)
-
Verify proxy configurationOpen Safari Preferences > Advanced > Proxies. Check if any proxy settings are enabled, particularly HTTP or HTTPS proxies which use the CONNECT method.Affected if A proxy is configured and enabled in Safari's network settings
-
Confirm CONNECT method usageReview network configuration for any proxy server that establishes tunnel connections using the CONNECT method, which is standard for HTTPS proxying.Affected if CONNECT method proxy tunneling is in use (typically port 443 proxies)
User is affected if Safari version is 3.2.2 or earlier AND the browser is configured to use a proxy that utilizes CONNECT method for tunneling, allowing an attacker on the network path to manipulate error responses.
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 Safari to version 3.2.2 or later, which properly validates the Host header before using it for security context determination in CONNECT error responses.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-2058 — 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-2009-2058 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