CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2016-5198

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Jan 19, 2017 | Modified: Jun 28, 2024
CVSS 3.x
8.8
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
6.8 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
6.8 IMPORTANT
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V3
8.8 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

V8 in Google Chrome prior to 54.0.2840.90 for Linux, and 54.0.2840.85 for Android, and 54.0.2840.87 for Windows and Mac included incorrect optimisation assumptions, which allowed a remote attacker to perform arbitrary read/write operations, leading to code execution, via a crafted HTML page.

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Chrome Google * 54.0.2840.90 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Supplementary RedHat chromium-browser-0:54.0.2840.90-1.el6 *
Chromium-browser Ubuntu artful *
Chromium-browser Ubuntu bionic *
Chromium-browser Ubuntu cosmic *
Chromium-browser Ubuntu devel *
Chromium-browser Ubuntu precise *
Chromium-browser Ubuntu trusty *
Chromium-browser Ubuntu upstream *
Chromium-browser Ubuntu xenial *
Chromium-browser Ubuntu yakkety *
Chromium-browser Ubuntu zesty *
Libv8 Ubuntu precise *
Libv8-3.14 Ubuntu artful *
Libv8-3.14 Ubuntu bionic *
Libv8-3.14 Ubuntu cosmic *
Libv8-3.14 Ubuntu devel *
Libv8-3.14 Ubuntu esm-apps/bionic *
Libv8-3.14 Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Libv8-3.14 Ubuntu trusty *
Libv8-3.14 Ubuntu upstream *
Libv8-3.14 Ubuntu xenial *
Libv8-3.14 Ubuntu yakkety *
Libv8-3.14 Ubuntu zesty *
Oxide-qt Ubuntu artful *
Oxide-qt Ubuntu trusty *
Oxide-qt Ubuntu upstream *
Oxide-qt Ubuntu vivid/stable-phone-overlay *
Oxide-qt Ubuntu xenial *
Oxide-qt Ubuntu yakkety *
Oxide-qt Ubuntu zesty *

Potential Mitigations

  • Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

References