CVE-2009-2485

HIGHCVSS v2 · 9.39.3
EchelonGraph scoreLOW confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS v2 base score.

This CVE was only ever scored under CVSS v2.0. NVD CVSS v2.0 base 9.3 — NVD rates that HIGH (NVD's v2 bands: LOW 0.0–3.9 / MEDIUM 4.0–6.9 / HIGH 7.0–10.0; no CRITICAL band). Vector AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C. CVSS v2 is an older, coarser metric than v3.1/v4.0 (no Scope, no User Interaction, no Attack Requirements), so it is not directly comparable to a v3 or v4 score. NVD has never re-scored this record under v3. EPSS predicts 58% exploitation probability in the next 30 days; it does not lift the v2 base. EchelonGraph's fixed weight for EG-KEV Tier 2 (Weaponized) sets EG Risk's exploitation input, not EPSS. Confidence: LOW.

Triggered by: NVD CVSS v2.0 (legacy fallback)
Sources: NVD CVSS v2.0
Weaponized

Also known asEUVD-2009-2480 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

9.3EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationNo fix on record since 2009: if the vendor still supports the product, apply the fixed version it names within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high; if it no longer does, isolate the affected system on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high, or retire the product (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High exploitation likelihood — EPSS 58%
  • Public exploit code is available (Metasploit, Exploit-DB, marked verified by Exploit-DB)
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 58%CVSS v2: 9.3Exploit: Metasploit · Exploit-DB (verified)Exposed services: Not assessed

No fix has been recorded since the CVE record was published in 2009 — if the vendor still supports the product, apply the fixed version it names; if not, isolate the affected system (restrict network access to it, for example with a firewall, or keep it off the internet) or retire the product.

Stack-based buffer overflow in HT-MP3Player 1.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a long string in a .ht3 file.

CVSS v2.0 (legacy)
9.3HIGHNVD never assigned a CVSS v3 rating to this CVE
EG Score
9.3HIGHlow confidence
EG Risk
68
EG Risk 68/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity93% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 9.3 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation65% × 40%
EchelonGraph's fixed weight for EG-KEV Tier 2 (Weaponized): a constant, not a probability.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.
Exploitation public PoC (exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: No fix has been recorded since the CVE record was published in 2009. If the vendor still supports the product, apply the fixed version it names within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high; if it no longer does, isolate the affected system (restrict network access to it, for example with a firewall, or keep it off the internet) on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high, or retire the product.
EPSS PROB
58%
EPSS %ILE
99th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (9.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
9.3 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v2.0 · CVSS v2.0AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
EG Likelihood
58% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track* at medium mission impactTrack at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.

No fix has been recorded since the CVE record was published in 2009. If the vendor still supports the product, apply the fixed version it names within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high; if it no longer does, isolate the affected system (restrict network access to it, for example with a firewall, or keep it off the internet) on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high, or retire the product.

Exploitation public PoC (exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

July 16, 2009

Last Modified

April 23, 2026

References (1)

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 13× in last 7d / 45× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 164 rows on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 64 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-12 23:42 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  2. 2026-11-12 23:42 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  3. 2026-11-12 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  4. 2026-11-12 01:25 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  5. 2026-11-12 01:25 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  6. 2026-11-11 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  7. 2026-11-11 03:07 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  8. 2026-11-11 03:07 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  9. 2026-11-10 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  10. 2026-11-10 04:50 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  11. 2026-11-10 04:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  12. 2026-11-09 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  13. 2026-11-09 06:33 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  14. 2026-11-09 06:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  15. 2026-11-08 08:15 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  16. 2026-11-08 08:15 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  17. 2026-11-07 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  18. 2026-11-07 09:58 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  19. 2026-11-07 09:58 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  20. 2026-11-06 11:41 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  21. 2026-11-06 11:41 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  22. 2026-11-05 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  23. 2026-11-05 13:24 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  24. 2026-11-05 13:24 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  25. 2026-11-04 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-11-04 15:07 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  2. 2026-11-03 16:50 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  3. 2026-11-03 16:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  4. 2026-11-03 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  5. 2026-11-02 18:24 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  6. 2026-11-02 18:24 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  7. 2026-11-01 20:06 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  8. 2026-11-01 20:06 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  9. 2026-11-01 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  10. 2026-10-31 21:47 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  11. 2026-10-31 21:47 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  12. 2026-10-31 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  13. 2026-10-30 23:30 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  14. 2026-10-30 23:30 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  15. 2026-10-30 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  16. 2026-10-30 01:13 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  17. 2026-10-30 01:13 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  18. 2026-10-29 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  19. 2026-10-29 02:55 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  20. 2026-10-29 02:55 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  21. 2026-10-28 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  22. 2026-10-28 04:38 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  23. 2026-10-28 04:37 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  24. 2026-10-27 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  25. 2026-10-27 06:20 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  26. 2026-10-27 06:20 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  27. 2026-10-26 04:03 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qg5v-qf7r-mg3f · GitHub severity HIGH
  28. 2026-10-25 20:22 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  29. 2026-10-25 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  30. 2026-10-24 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  31. 2026-10-23 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  32. 2026-10-22 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  33. 2026-10-21 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  34. 2026-10-20 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  35. 2026-10-19 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  36. 2026-10-18 11:43 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  37. 2026-10-17 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  38. 2026-10-16 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  39. 2026-10-15 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  40. 2026-10-14 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  41. 2026-10-13 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  42. 2026-10-12 21:45 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  43. 2026-10-12 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  44. 2026-10-12 01:53 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  45. 2026-10-11 13:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  46. 2026-10-10 19:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  47. 2026-10-09 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  48. 2026-10-08 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  49. 2026-10-07 23:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  50. 2026-10-06 15:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  51. 2026-09-30 14:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  52. 2026-09-29 07:59 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  53. 2026-09-27 13:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  54. 2026-09-26 15:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  55. 2026-09-24 13:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  56. 2026-09-17 19:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  57. 2026-09-15 03:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  58. 2026-09-12 14:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  59. 2026-09-10 09:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  60. 2026-09-06 13:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  61. 2026-09-05 15:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  62. 2026-09-04 13:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  63. 2026-08-28 21:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  64. 2026-08-27 14:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  65. 2026-08-25 13:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  66. 2026-08-19 16:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  67. 2026-08-15 01:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  68. 2026-08-09 13:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  69. 2026-08-06 13:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 99th percentile
  70. 2026-08-03 10:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 98th percentile
  71. 2026-07-30 01:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 98th percentile
  72. 2026-07-26 13:38 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 9.3 HIGH
  73. 2026-07-25 14:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 98th percentile
  74. 2026-07-24 14:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 98th percentile
  75. 2026-07-23 14:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 58% · 98th percentile

Publicly available exploits

(4 references)

Public exploit code is referenced for this CVE (1 Metasploit module, 3 Exploit-DB entries). No fix has been recorded since the CVE record was published in 2009. If the vendor still supports the product, apply the fixed version it names; if it no longer does, isolate the affected system or retire the product.

  • Exploit-DBEDB-16646✓ verified
    Published Apr 30, 2010

    HT-MP3Player 1.0 - '.HT3' File Parsing Buffer Overflow (Metasploit)

    Open source ↗
  • Metasploitexploit/windows/fileformat/ht_mp3player_ht3_bof✓ verified
    Published Nov 14, 2009

    HT-MP3Player 1.0 HT3 File Parsing Buffer Overflow

    Open source ↗
  • Exploit-DBEDB-9034✓ verified
    Published Jun 29, 2009

    HT-MP3Player 1.0 - '.ht3' Local Buffer Overflow (SEH)

    Open source ↗
  • Exploit-DBEDB-9038✓ verified
    Published Jun 29, 2009

    HT-MP3Player 1.0 - '.ht3' Universal Buffer Overflow (SEH)

    Open source ↗

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2009-2485?
CVE-2009-2485 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on July 16, 2009. Stack-based buffer overflow in HT-MP3Player 1.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a long string in a .ht3 file.
When was CVE-2009-2485 made public?
CVE-2009-2485 was made public on June 29, 2009: that is the date its CVE record's CNA, MITRE Corporation, gives for when the vulnerability was made public. The CVE record itself was published on July 16, 2009. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of April 23, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2009-2485 actively exploited?
CVE-2009-2485 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. EchelonGraph's EG-KEV model places it in Tier 2 (Weaponized), which is not evidence of exploitation: a Metasploit module exists for it, and Exploit-DB marks a public exploit for it as verified. EchelonGraph does not test whether exploit code works. FIRST EPSS estimates a 58% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (99th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
How do I remediate CVE-2009-2485?
No fix for CVE-2009-2485 has been recorded since its CVE record was published in 2009. If the vendor still supports the product, apply the fixed version it names; if it no longer does, isolate the affected system (restrict network access to it, for example with a firewall, or keep it off the internet) or retire the product.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2009-2485

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2009-2485?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.