CVE-2010-2108

CVE: CVE-2010-2108
CWE:
- 284
bugs:
- 39740
repo: 
vccs:
- note: "This commit was responsible for applying the host content settings \nwhen
    navigating to a new url. It did not account for applying content\nsettings to
    new windows.\n"
  commit: f85f070f8fca83ca373929584218d7185ff89220
fixes:
- note: |
    The fix involved defaulting the content settings to the parent window.
    This will indirectly pass the host-based settings to the new window.
  commit: 62d2a1159508500bd079f41f2169d8460566c342
bounty:
  date: 
  amount: 
  references: []
lessons:
  yagni:
    note: 
    applies: 
  question: |
    Are there any common lessons we have learned from class that apply to this
    vulnerability? In other words, could this vulnerability serve as an example
    of one of those lessons?

    Leave "applies" blank or put false if you did not see that lesson (you do
    not need to put a reason). Put "true" if you feel the lesson applies and put
    a quick explanation of how it applies.

    Don't feel the need to claim that ALL of these apply, but it's pretty likely
    that one or two of them apply.

    If you think of another lesson we covered in class that applies here, feel
    free to give it a small name and add one in the same format as these.
  serial_killer:
    note: 
    applies: 
  complex_inputs:
    note: 
    applies: 
  distrust_input:
    note: 
    applies: 
  least_privilege:
    note: 
    applies: 
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: 
    applies: 
  secure_by_default:
    note: "When a new tab is created, the whitelist of acceptable plugins should\nautomatically
      be applied. \n"
    applies: true
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
reviews:
- 1524014
- 1584011
upvotes: 
mistakes:
  answer: "I think a few mistakes went into the creation of the vulnerability. First\nof
    all, I believe there may have been miscommunication within the team. \nWhen reading
    the thread detailing the vulnerability, there seemed to be \ndisagreement on whether
    this was a UI decision. It's possible that when\nthe vulnerability was first introduced,
    the programmer considered it a \nUI design decision. This can also lead to it
    being a mistake in the\nrequirements. It's very possible that the default blocking
    of plugins\nwas not a requirement. This also could be the result of the programmer
    \nnot understanding the system as a whole. If the programmer did not completely\nunderstand
    how the creation of a new window works, this vulnerability would\nhave gone unnoticed.
    Going forward, vulnerabilities like this can be avoided\nwith a couple steps.
    First, teammates always need to be on the same page when it\ncomes to requirements.
    Next, if something is unclear in the requirements,\ndevelopers should review it
    with the team. Finally, developers should also make\nsure that they understand
    the system they are working in completely before making\nchanges.\n"
  question: |
    In your opinion, after all of this research, what mistakes were made that
    led to this vulnerability? Coding mistakes? Design mistakes?
    Maintainability? Requirements? Miscommunications?

    Look at the CWE entry for this vulnerability and examine the mitigations
    they have written there. Are they doing those? Does the fix look proper?

    Use those questions to inspire your answer. Don't feel obligated to answer
    every one. Write a thoughtful entry here that those in the software
    engineering industry would find interesting.
announced: '2010-05-28 14:30:01.690000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
  name: browser
  answer: 'This was in the browser subsystem. This is because it is within the chrome
    directory.

    '
  question: |
    What subsystems was the mistake in?

    Look at the path of the source code files code that were fixed to get
    directory names. Look at comments in the code. Look at the bug reports how
    the bug report was tagged. Examples: "clipboard", "gpu", "ssl", "speech", "renderer"
discovered:
  date: '2010-3-29'
  answer: "This vulnerability was discovered by a developer and reported to the team.
    The\nvulnerability was shown with a simple script that opened a new window and
    embeded a\nplugin. \n"
  google: true
  contest: 
  question: |
    How was this vulnerability discovered?

    Go to the bug report and read the conversation to find out how this was
    originally found. Answer in longform below in "answer", fill in the date in
    YYYY-MM-DD, and then determine if the vulnerability was found by a Google
    employee (you can tell from their email address). If it's clear that the
    vulenrability was discovered by a contest, fill in the name there.

    The "automated" flag can be true, false, or nil.
    The "google" flag can be true, false, or nil.

    If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then you may
    leave the entries blank except for "answer". Write down where you looked in "answer".
  automated: false
description: "This vulnerability allows remote attackers to bypass the whitelist of\nacceptable
  plugins. The whitelist is part of the host-based settings. The \nwhitelist works
  as intended when navigating, because all webpages will have a\nhost. The issue is
  when a new tab is first created, there is no host and thus\nthe plugin whitelist
  will not be applied.  \n\nThe fix for this vulnerability was having new windows
  inherit host-based settings\nfrom the parent.\n"
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: false
  answer: 'I could not find any evidence that this vulnerability was involved in unit
    testing

    '
  question: |
    Were automated unit tests involved in this vulnerability?
    Was the original code unit tested, or not unit tested? Did the fix involve
    improving the automated tests?

    For the "code" answer below, look not only at the fix but the surrounding
    code near the fix and determine if and was there were unit tests involved
    for this module.

    For the "fix" answer below, check if the fix for the vulnerability involves
    adding or improving an automated test to ensure this doesn't happen again.
major_events:
  answer: |
    It appears that at the time the vulnerability was created, the team was focused
    on updating chrome for the new OS X operating system for mac computers. Even
    though the vulnerability was introduced while updating for OS X, the
    vulnerability is for all operating systems.
  events:
  - date: '2010-2-3'
    name: Allowing GPU processing on OS X Mac computers.
  - date: '2010-2-23'
    name: Added 3D support to Mac Leopard operating system
  question: |
    Please record any major events you found in the history of this
    vulnerability. Was the code rewritten at some point? Was a nearby subsystem
    changed? Did the team change?

    The event doesn't need to be directly related to this vulnerability, rather,
    we want to capture what the development team was dealing with at the time.
curation_level: 1
CWE_instructions: |
  Please go to cwe.mitre.org and find the most specific, appropriate CWE entry
  that describes your vulnerability. (Tip: this may not be a good one to start
  with - spend time understanding this vulnerability before making your choice!)
bounty_instructions: |
  If you came across any indications that a bounty was paid out for this
  vulnerability, fill it out here. Or correct it if the information already here
  was wrong. Otherwise, leave it blank.
interesting_commits:
  answer: 
  commits:
  - note: 'This commit involves giving plugins current window activation information.

      '
    commit: d8fd6faa7cdccb77c2d496e1ebb9d5f1b9ede717
  - note: "This commit involves notifying the browser when content get blocked. This
      \nrelates to the vulnerability which also involved blocking content.\n"
    commit: 0de8016abb321cb9a1c32dfb534cf16ec905b260
  question: |
    Are there any interesting commits between your VCC(s) and fix(es)?

    Write a brief (under 100 words) description of why you think this commit was
    interesting in light of the lessons learned from this vulnerability. Any
    emerging themes?

    If there are no interesting commits, demonstrate that you completed this section by explaining what happened between the VCCs and the fix.
curated_instructions: |
  If you are manually editing this file, then you are "curating" it. Set the
  entry below to "true" as soon as you start. This will enable additional
  integrity checks on this file to make sure you fill everything out properly.
  If you are a student, we cannot accept your work as finished unless curated is
  set to true.
upvotes_instructions: |
  For the first round, ignore this upvotes number.

  For the second round of reviewing, you will be giving a certain amount of
  upvotes to each vulnerability you see. Your peers will tell you how
  interesting they think this vulnerability is, and you'll add that to the
  upvotes score on your branch.
announced_instructions: |
  Was there a date that this vulnerability was announced to the world? You can
  find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE date. A good
  source for this is Chrome's Stable Release Channel
  (https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/).
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
fixes_vcc_instructions: |
  Please put the commit hash in "commit" below (see my example in
  CVE-2011-3092.yml). Fixes and VCCs follow the same format.
description_instructions: |
  You can get an initial description from the CVE entry on cve.mitre.org. These
  descriptions are a fine start, but they can be kind of jargony.

  Rewrite this description in your own words. Make it interesting and easy to
  read to anyone with some programming experience. We can always pull up the NVD
  description later to get more technical.

  Try to still be specific in your description, but remove Chromium-specific
  stuff. Remove references to versions, specific filenames, and other jargon
  that outsiders to Chromium would not understand. Technology like "regular
  expressions" is fine, and security phrases like "invalid write" are fine to
  keep too.