CVE-2009-3305
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 · uneditedPolipo 1.0.4, and possibly other versions, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a request with a Cache-Control header that lacks a value for the max-age field, which triggers a segmentation fault in the httpParseHeaders function in http_parse.c, and possibly other unspecified vectors.
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 confidencePolipo 1.0.4 and possibly earlier versions suffer from a denial-of-service vulnerability in the httpParseHeaders function in http_parse.c. Remote attackers can trigger a segmentation fault by sending HTTP requests with a Cache-Control header that lacks a value for the max-age field, causing the proxy to crash.
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= 1.0.4CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 Polipo installation and versionRun 'polipo -v' or 'polipo --version' to display the installed Polipo version, or check your package manager for the installed version.Affected if The version displayed is 1.0.4 or earlier.
-
Confirm Polipo is runningCheck if the Polipo process is active using 'ps aux | grep polipo' or by testing connectivity to the proxy port (default 8123) with a tool like netcat or curl.Affected if Polipo is running and accepting HTTP connections on a network port.
-
Identify the http_parse.c fileLocate the Polipo source or binary and verify the presence of http_parse.c containing the httpParseHeaders function. If using a packaged version, this may require examining the source package.Affected if The httpParseHeaders function exists in the installed Polipo version.
-
Test for the vulnerable conditionSend a crafted HTTP request to the Polipo proxy containing a Cache-Control header without a max-age value (e.g., 'Cache-Control: max-age=' with nothing after the equals sign), and observe if the proxy crashes or becomes unresponsive.Affected if The proxy crashes, hangs, or becomes unreachable after processing a Cache-Control header with a missing max-age value.
A user is affected if Polipo version 1.0.4 or earlier is installed, running, and accessible to process HTTP requests containing malformed Cache-Control headers with missing max-age values.
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 a patched version of Polipo that properly handles malformed Cache-Control headers with missing max-age values, or implement input validation to reject such requests at a front-end proxy/filter.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,992.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-3305 — 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-2009-3305 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