SafariWeb browser · Apple
CVE-2009-2066
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 detects http content in https web pages only when the top-level frame uses https, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary web script, in an https site's context, by modifying an http page to include an https iframe that references a script file on an http site, related to "HTTP-Intended-but-HTTPS-Loadable (HPIHSL) pages."
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 fails to properly detect HTTP content (especially scripts) loaded within HTTPS pages when the top-level frame uses HTTPS, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to inject malicious web scripts into the context of secure HTTPS sites by modifying HTTP pages to include HTTPS iframes that reference HTTP-hosted script 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
SafariWeb browser
<= 3.2.1= 0.8= 0.9= 1.0= 1.0.0= 1.0.0b1= 1.0.0b2= 1.0.1= 1.0.2= 1.0.3= 1.1= 1.1.0CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Identify installed Safari versionOpen Safari, click Safari menu, select 'About Safari' to display the version number (e.g., 3.2.1, 1.1.0, etc.)Affected if The displayed version is 3.2.1 or lower, or exactly matches 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.0.0, 1.0.0b1, 1.0.0b2, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, 1.1, or 1.1.0
-
Confirm version is within affected rangeCompare your installed version number against the list: versions <= 3.2.1 and the specific versions 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.0.0, 1.0.0b1, 1.0.0b2, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, 1.1, 1.1.0 are vulnerableAffected if Your Safari version appears in the affected list
-
Verify browser is used for HTTPS browsingCheck whether Safari is used to access HTTPS websites, particularly ones that may load external resourcesAffected if You use Safari to browse HTTPS sites and those sites load scripts, iframes, or stylesheets from HTTP sources (mixed content)
You are affected if your Safari version is 3.2.1 or lower, or exactly matches one of the listed vulnerable versions (0.8 through 1.1.0), and you use the browser to view HTTPS pages that could load HTTP-hosted resources.
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 dataThis is a browser-side vulnerability that was patched in older Safari versions; web applications should ensure all external resources (scripts, stylesheets, iframes) are served exclusively over HTTPS to prevent mixed content attacks.
Fix this in Safari
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-2066 — 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-2009-2066 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