CVE-2009-3490
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 · uneditedGNU Wget before 1.12 does not properly handle a '\0' character in a domain name in the Common Name field of an X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle remote attackers to spoof arbitrary SSL servers via a crafted certificate issued by a legitimate Certification Authority, a related issue to CVE-2009-2408.
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 confidenceGNU Wget before version 1.12 fails to properly validate X.509 certificates containing a null character ('\0') in the Common Name (CN) field. This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof legitimate SSL servers using certificates issued by trusted Certification Authorities, bypassing the certificate chain validation.
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<= 1.11.4= 1.5.3= 1.6= 1.7= 1.7.1= 1.8= 1.8.1= 1.9= 1.9.1= 1.10= 1.10.1= 1.10.2CVSS 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.
-
Check installed Wget versionRun 'wget --version' and note the version number in the outputAffected if Version is 1.5.3, 1.6, 1.7, 1.7.1, 1.8, 1.8.1, 1.9, 1.9.1, 1.10, 1.10.1, 1.10.2, or any version 1.11 through 1.11.4
-
Identify Wget usage with SSL/TLSReview scripts, cron jobs, or configurations that invoke wget with https:// URLs, or inspect network traffic logs for Wget HTTPS requestsAffected if Wget is actively used or configured to make HTTPS connections
-
Verify certificate validation is in useCheck if Wget is configured to perform server certificate verification (default behavior) by inspecting wget command lines for absence of '--no-check-certificate'Affected if Server certificate validation is enabled (the default), which is required for the vulnerability to be exploitable
You are affected if your Wget version is 1.11.4 or earlier and you use Wget to connect to HTTPS URLs with standard certificate validation enabled.
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 GNU Wget to version 1.12 or later, which includes proper null byte handling in certificate validation. If immediate upgrade is not possible, avoid using Wget for SSL/TLS connections to untrusted networks.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,072.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-3490 — 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-2009-3490 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