CVE-2009-2718
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 · uneditedThe Abstract Window Toolkit (AWT) implementation in Sun Java SE 6 before Update 15 on X11 does not impose the intended constraint on distance from the window border to the Security Warning Icon, which makes it easier for context-dependent attackers to trick a user into interacting unsafely with an untrusted applet.
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 confidenceThe Abstract Window Toolkit (AWT) in Sun Java SE 6 prior to Update 15 on X11 systems fails to enforce the intended minimum distance constraint between the window border and the Security Warning Icon. This allows untrusted applets to position the warning icon dangerously close to the window edge, potentially deceiving users into clicking on malicious content believing it to be a trusted security warning.
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= 6CVSS 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.
-
Verify Java SE 6 is installedRun 'java -version' or 'javac -version' from command line, or check for Java installation directories like /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-*Affected if Java SE 6 is present on the system
-
Determine the exact Java update versionParse the version output from 'java -version' - look for version string like 1.6.0_X where X is the update number (Update 14 or earlier means vulnerable)Affected if Version string shows 1.6.0_14 or earlier (Update 14 or earlier)
-
Confirm the system uses X11 display serverCheck if the DISPLAY environment variable is set (echo $DISPLAY) or verify X11 libraries are in use - this vulnerability only affects X11 systems, not Windows or MacAffected if System is running X11 (Unix/Linux with X Window System) and DISPLAY is configured
A user is affected if Sun Java SE 6 with an update version earlier than Update 15 (1.6.0_14 or lower) is installed on an X11-based system.
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 Sun Java SE 6 to Update 15 or later to obtain the patched AWT implementation that properly enforces the Security Warning Icon distance constraint.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-2718 — 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-2009-2718 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