CVE-2019-17001
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 · uneditedA Content-Security-Policy that blocks in-line scripts could be bypassed using an object tag to execute JavaScript in the protected document (cross-site scripting). This is a separate bypass from CVE-2019-17000.*Note: This flaw only affected Firefox 69 and was not present in earlier versions.*. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 70.
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 confidenceFirefox 69 contained a Content-Security-Policy bypass where an attacker could use an <object> tag to execute JavaScript in a protected document, even when CSP was configured to block inline scripts. This cross-site scripting vulnerability existed only in Firefox 69 and was fixed in Firefox 70.
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= 69.0CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Identify Firefox versionOpen Firefox, click the menu button (three horizontal lines), select Help, then select About Firefox. The version number will display on this page.Affected if The displayed version is exactly 69.0
-
Verify version via command line (Windows)Open Command Prompt and run: powershell -Command "(Get-ItemProperty 'HKLM:\SOFTWARE\Mozilla\Mozilla Firefox').CurrentVersion"Affected if The returned version string is 69.0
-
Verify version via command line (macOS)Open Terminal and run: /Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox -vAffected if The returned version string shows 69.0
-
Verify version via command line (Linux)Open Terminal and run: firefox --versionAffected if The returned version string shows 69.0
A user is affected if their installed Firefox version is exactly 69.0, as this CSP bypass vulnerability exists only in that specific version and was patched in Firefox 70.
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 Firefox to version 70 or later to receive the security fix. No additional configuration changes are required since this was a browser-level vulnerability.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-17001 — 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-2019-17001 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