SafariWeb browser · Apple
CVE-2009-2072
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 does not require a cached certificate before displaying a lock icon for an https web site, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof an arbitrary https site by sending the browser a crafted (1) 4xx or (2) 5xx CONNECT response page for an https request sent through a proxy server.
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 displays a lock icon for HTTPS sites without requiring proper certificate validation when connecting through a proxy server. An attacker positioned as a man-in-the-middle can send a crafted 4xx or 5xx CONNECT response, causing Safari to show a false lock icon while the connection is actually insecure. This allows spoofing of arbitrary HTTPS sites.
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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:A/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 versionOpen Safari, go to Safari > About Safari (or press Cmd+,) and note the version number displayedAffected if Version is 3.2.1 or earlier, or matches any of these: 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
-
Verify proxy configuration in SafariOpen Safari > Settings > Advanced > Proxies, or check System Settings > Network > Proxies. Look for HTTP, HTTPS, or SOCKS proxy entries that are enabledAffected if Any proxy (HTTP, HTTPS, SOCKS) is enabled and configured in Safari or system settings
-
Confirm HTTPS lock icon behavior with proxyWith a proxy enabled, visit an HTTPS website and observe the lock icon. Then try visiting an HTTP site through the same proxy to compare behavior. Note whether the lock icon appears for all sites or only valid HTTPS connectionsAffected if Lock icon appears inappropriately or fails to properly validate certificates when a proxy is in use
You are affected if Safari version is one of the listed affected versions AND a proxy server is configured and enabled in the browser or system settings.
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 dataUsers should update Safari to patched versions. Avoid using proxy servers for HTTPS connections until the browser is patched. Organizations should inspect SSL/TLS traffic at the network perimeter to detect proxy-based MITM attempts.
Fix this in Safari
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-2072 — 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-2009-2072 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