Threats / Apple / CVE-2021-1789
CVE-2021-1789
· EUVD no mirror located
· GCVE no mirror located
Verified 2026-09-19
Apple Multiple Products vulnerability
A type confusion vulnerability in multiple Apple products allows arbitrary code execution through maliciously crafted web content.
Verdict
Today item — known-exploited.
This type confusion issue poses significant risk to Apple users. Exploitation requires user interaction with malicious web content but leads directly to code execution. Active exploitation in the wild elevates urgency despite low EPSS score.
CISA KEV Yes · 2022-05-044EPSS 0.14479 (verify live)5CVSS 8.8 (CISA)3CISA SSVC Exploitation: active · Automatable: no · Impact: total3
01
Is it exploitable?
— the evidence, ranked above the scoreReported exploitation
5 independent public reports of in-the-wild exploitation are cataloged.Distinct reporting sources (vendor, incident response, government); open them for the underlying claims.
Exploited in the wild
Listed in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog (added 2022-05-04).
Probability (EPSS)
EPSS 0.14479 — modeled likelihood of exploitation activity.EPSS is a daily-changing model output — open the source for today's value.
Severity / affected
CVSS 8.8 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) · Affected: Apple, Multiple Products. Confirm exact fixed builds in the vendor advisory.CVSS — CISA-assigned via the ADP container (CVE.org), version 3.1; the CNA left no metrics, so CISA's own score is used ahead of NVD.
Weakness (CWE)
Mapped to CWE-843 Type Confusion — weakness family: Memory safety.CWE assignment from the public NVD record (may be stale); the weakness class drives how the flaw is exploited.
CISA SSVC (triage disposition)
Exploitation: active · Automatable: no · Technical Impact: totalCISA's own stakeholder-specific triage inputs, published in the CVE record (CISA Coordinator role). NOTE: this is CISA's three decision points; the final Act/Attend/Track decision also requires a Mission & Well-being input not published here, so no overall decision is asserted.
Currency of the record
CISA added this to its KEV catalog 397 days after the CVE record was published.KEV lag = CISA-KEV dateAdded − CVE.org datePublished; a floor on how long the known-exploited flaw sat in the public record before the federal catalog listed it. Severity/weakness here is CNA- or CISA-assigned (current at disclosure), independent of NVD's analysis backlog.
02
Who’s exploiting it?
— attribution turns risk into urgencyAttribution not established
No confirmed (advisory-backed) threat-actor attribution is established for this record. Absence of a named actor is not absence of compromise — see Coverage & confidence.
03
Why it matters
— the attack path, told twice: adversary, then board1
Front door — unauthenticated access narrative 1
Attacker
Craft malicious web content that exploits type confusion in Apple's web rendering engine to trigger memory corruption.
Business
Users visiting compromised or attacker-controlled websites face immediate code execution risk, compromising device security and data confidentiality.
2
Keys to the kingdom — privilege/identity takeover narrative 2
Attacker
Execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the affected application to establish persistence or exfiltrate user data.
Business
Widespread exploitation could damage Apple's reputation, increase support costs, and expose customer data to theft or misuse.
04
What to do
— defensible action- Remediate per the vendor advisory — confirm the fixed build for your version and verify exposure.1
Say it to the boardA vulnerability with this evidence profile is a defensible budget line, not a backlog ticket — fund the change against the proof above.
05
Coverage & confidence
— what we know, and what we don’tEstablished (cited)
Coverage gaps — stated, not hidden
Disclosure & credit2
Catalogued by appleCNA
Credited with finding itNo finder is named in the public CVE record or the scanned vendor advisory — attribution scoped to the sources checked.
Found an error? Propose a correction.
A correction is a cited counter-claim — it must cite a source,
gets reviewed by a second human, and is never auto-applied. See the
correction convention and our identity
npub1j7gt9ky7sfcrjn8jjee6693dkzvk4rahs0fk2suu7968dfns62zs3mqm3y.