CVE-2009-3044
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 · uneditedOpera before 10.00 does not properly handle a (1) '\0' character or (2) invalid wildcard character in a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) field of an X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof arbitrary SSL servers via a crafted certificate issued by a legitimate Certification Authority.
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 confidenceOpera before version 10.00 failed to properly validate X.509 certificates when the Common Name (CN) field contained null ('\0') characters or invalid wildcard characters. This allowed attackers with a legitimate CA-issued certificate to craft certificates that would appear valid for arbitrary domains, enabling man-in-the-middle attacks against SSL connections.
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<= 10.00= 1.00= 2.00= 2.10= 2.12= 3.00= 3.10= 3.21= 3.50= 3.51= 3.60= 3.61CVSS 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
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
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 if Opera Browser is installedOn Windows, check for Opera executable at common installation paths (e.g., C:\Program Files\Opera\opera.exe or C:\Program Files (x86)\Opera\opera.exe). On Linux, run 'which opera' or check /usr/bin/opera. On macOS, check /Applications/Opera.app.Affected if Opera Browser executable is found on the system
-
Determine installed Opera versionOn Windows, right-click opera.exe, select Properties, and view the Version tab. On Linux, run 'opera --version' or 'opera -version'. On macOS, right-click Opera.app, select Get Info, and view the version field.Affected if A version number is returned that matches the affected versions (<= 10.00 or any of: 1.00, 2.00, 2.10, 2.12, 3.00, 3.10, 3.21, 3.50, 3.51, 3.60, 3.61)
-
Compare against affected version rangeMatch the detected version number against the affected range: versions <= 10.00, or exact versions 1.00, 2.00, 2.10, 2.12, 3.00, 3.10, 3.21, 3.50, 3.51, 3.60, or 3.61.Affected if The installed version falls within any of these affected versions, meaning SSL certificate validation can be bypassed via malformed CN fields
If Opera Browser is installed and its version is 10.00 or lower (or matches one of the specific older versions listed), the browser is vulnerable to SSL certificate validation bypass via malicious X.509 certificates containing null or invalid wildcard characters in the CN field.
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 to Opera 10.00 or later, or migrate to a currently supported browser that properly validates certificate subject fields.
- Consultation2.0 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 $1,456.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-3044 — 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-2009-3044 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