CVE-2010-2652

CVE: CVE-2010-2652
CWE:
- 707
bugs:
- 47056
repo: 
vccs:
- note: |
    This file has started out as a TODO in its initial commit. The functinonality
    that has caused the vulnerability hasn't been touched until it was fixed.
  commit: 
fixes:
- note: closes the current dialog when a page navigation occurrs.
  commit: 66711f6f7abbf3ed9f0d39e4f497620ab39e79f0
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: "This vulnerability assumes closing dialogs from the queue is an acceptable
      type of input \nfrom the webpage. Manipulating the queue resulted in a vulnerability
      for availability.\n"
    applies: true
  least_privilege:
    note: 
    applies: 
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: 
    applies: 
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: 
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
reviews:
- 2827029
- 2803017
upvotes: 
mistakes:
  answer: "This was a design mistake. The initial implementation lacked any checking
    to \nvalidate that the modals were as expected. The orginal author was most likely
    not \naware of modal queues when working on the functionality. The CWE doesnt
    mention any\nobvious ways to mitigate this issue. In this situation, the author
    should have done more\nresearch on the functionality of dialogs."
  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 ing the software
    engineering industry would find interesting.
announced: '2010-07-06 13:17:14.967000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
  name: browser
  answer: The vulnerability was found in /browser/app_modal_dialog_gtk.cc
  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: '2010-06-21'
  answer: 'Found by Aki Helin. Does not mention how.

    '
  google: false
  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 pertains to the availability of the browser. If it
  was\nexploited, the chromium web browser would crash. Websites can create and allow
  \nthe user to view Javascript dialogs. These dialogs can be queued so that another
  \nmay pop up when one closes. The crash would occur when a dialog that is in the
  queue \ncloses. In order to do this, multiple tabs must be opened in the browser.
  If both\npages open a dialog simultaniously it would trigger the vulnerability.\n"
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: false
  answer: |
    There were automated unit tests in the project at this time, but not for this
    functionality.
  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: |
    The code was refactored to after the issue was raised. This was not a module
    wide change.
  events:
  - date: '2010-06-28'
    name: Enable chrome to display all cookies used/blocked on the current site.
  - date: '2010-07-02'
    name: A large chunk of CVEs were being patched at the time of the fix.
  - date: '2009-05-29'
    name: A throbber (loading spinner) is being worked rewritten due to performance
      issues.
  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: |
    There is over a year of time between when the vulnerability was introduced and fixed. Between then, only once was the file that contained
    the vulnerability was ever edited. More functionality was added, but it wasn't related to the vulnerability.
  commits:
  - note: Recent commits around the fix were fixes of other vulnerabilities. Chromium
      seems to fix vulnerabilities in chunks.
    commit: e47ac7c58b6204bef5fe52ecfc322c2dbd6ad13b
  - note: This will enable chrome to display all cookies used/blocked on the current
      site to the user instead of just the information that something was blocked.
    commit: 9fb83e856fc12168151094df31e57177e4844417
  - note: One of a series of seven commits that fixed an issue where plugins crashed
      the build
    commit: 57ba2333cc1d584583b0bc6013cc006bc55328f8
  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.