ChromeWeb browser · Google
CVE-2009-2973
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 · uneditedGoogle Chrome before 2.0.172.43 does not prevent SSL connections to a site with an X.509 certificate signed with the (1) MD2 or (2) MD4 algorithm, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof arbitrary HTTPS servers via a crafted certificate, a related issue to CVE-2009-2409.
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 confidenceGoogle Chrome before version 2.0.172.43 does not block SSL/TLS connections to HTTPS servers presenting X.509 certificates signed with weak hash algorithms (MD2 or MD4). This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to forge certificates and impersonate legitimate HTTPS servers, compromising the integrity of encrypted communications.
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
ChromeWeb browser
<= 2.0.172.37= 0.2.149.27= 0.2.149.29= 0.2.149.30= 0.2.152.1= 0.2.153.1= 0.3.154.0= 0.3.154.3= 0.4.154.18= 0.4.154.22= 0.4.154.31= 0.4.154.33CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/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.
-
Determine installed Google Chrome versionOpen Chrome and navigate to chrome://version, or click Help > About Google Chrome. Record the version number displayed.Affected if The version is 2.0.172.37 or lower, or matches any of these specific versions: 0.2.149.27, 0.2.149.29, 0.2.149.30, 0.2.152.1, 0.2.153.1, 0.3.154.0, 0.3.154.3, 0.4.154.18, 0.4.154.22, 0.4.154.31, or 0.4.154.33.
-
Verify Chrome is used for HTTPS browsingConfirm that Google Chrome is actively used to browse HTTPS-enabled websites in your environment.Affected if Chrome is used as a browser to connect to any HTTPS websites, as the vulnerability allows impersonation of legitimate HTTPS servers.
-
Confirm certificate validation behavior (optional manual check)If you have access to a test server presenting an X.509 certificate signed with MD2 or MD4, attempt to connect via Chrome and observe whether the connection is allowed or blocked.Affected if Chrome accepts and establishes an SSL/TLS connection to a server presenting an MD2/MD4-signed certificate, indicating the weak hash algorithm vulnerability is present.
You are affected if your installed Google Chrome version is 2.0.172.37 or lower, or matches any of the specific affected versions listed, and you use Chrome to browse HTTPS websites.
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 Google Chrome to version 2.0.172.43 or later, which enforces rejection of certificates signed with deprecated MD2/MD4 algorithms.
Fix this in Chrome
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2009-2973 — 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-2009-2973 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