dbcve.org
Adaptive Security ApplianceHardware / appliance · Cisco

CVE-2009-2631

MEDIUM · 6.8 CVSS v2.0 Published 2009-12-04
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
77/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Multiple clientless SSL VPN products that run in web browsers, including Stonesoft StoneGate; Cisco ASA; SonicWALL E-Class SSL VPN and SonicWALL SSL VPN; SafeNet SecureWire Access Gateway; Juniper Networks Secure Access; Nortel CallPilot; Citrix Access Gateway; and other products, when running in configurations that do not restrict access to the same domain as the VPN, retrieve the content of remote URLs from one domain and rewrite them so they originate from the VPN's domain, which violates the same origin policy and allows remote attackers to conduct cross-site scripting attacks, read cookies that originated from other domains, access the Web VPN session to gain access to internal resources, perform key logging, and conduct other attacks. NOTE: it could be argued that this is a fundamental design problem in any clientless VPN solution, as opposed to a commonly-introduced error that can be fixed in separate implementations. Therefore a single CVE has been assigned for all products that have this design

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 confidence

Clientless SSL VPN products (including Cisco ASA, SonicWALL, Juniper, Citrix, and others) retrieve content from remote URLs and rewrite it to appear to originate from the VPN's domain, violating the same-origin policy and enabling cross-site scripting, cookie theft, session hijacking, and key logging attacks.

MitigationConfigure VPNs to restrict access to the same domain, or consider migrating to VPN architectures that do not perform content rewriting; this fundamental design flaw may require architectural changes beyond simple configuration fixes.

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
Adaptive Security ApplianceHardware / appliance
Affected:all versions
Safenet Securewire Access GatewayHardware / appliance
Affected:all versions
E Class Ssl VpnHardware / appliance
Affected:all versions
Ssl VpnHardware / appliance
Affected:all versions
StonegateHardware / appliance
Affected:all versions

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify deployed SSL VPN product
    Review network infrastructure to determine if any of these products are in use: Cisco ASA with WebVPN/SSL VPN features, Aladdin Safenet Securewire Access Gateway, SonicWALL E-Class or standard SSL VPN, or Stonesoft Stonegate. Check device inventory, running configs, or documentation.
    Affected if Any of the listed products (Cisco ASA, Aladdin Safenet, SonicWALL, Stonesoft) are deployed as clientless SSL VPNs
  2. Verify clientless VPN is enabled
    For Cisco ASA, check for 'webvpn' or 'ssl vpn' configuration under the running config. For SonicWALL, check SSL VPN settings in the admin interface. For Stonesoft, check VPN configuration for clientless access. Use 'show run webvpn' on Cisco ASA or review the admin panel for other products.
    Affected if Clientless SSL VPN feature is enabled on the device
  3. Confirm content rewriting behavior
    Access the VPN login page from an external client, then request a known external URL (such as http://example.com) through the VPN portal. Inspect the HTTP response headers and HTML source to see if the content appears to originate from the VPN's domain rather than the original remote domain. Check if links or scripts have been rewritten.
    Affected if Remote content is being rewritten to appear as if it originates from the VPN's domain, violating same-origin policy

A user is affected if they are running any version of the listed clientless SSL VPN products with content rewriting enabled, which allows external content to be served from the VPN domain and enables cross-site scripting and session hijacking attacks.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Configure VPNs to restrict access to the same domain, or consider migrating to VPN architectures that do not perform content rewriting; this fundamental design flaw may require architectural changes beyond simple configuration fixes.

Fix this in Adaptive Security Appliance Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation12.0 h
  • Implementation40.0 h
  • Testing24.0 h
  • Review / QA16.0 h
92.0 hours of engineering $16,080
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $25,728.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-2631 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2009-2631 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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