CVE-2010-3250

CVE: CVE-2010-3250
CWE:
- 279
bugs:
- 45876
repo: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/chromium
vccs:
- note: Initial implementation of the extension protocol.
  commit: 828912619a537bf7a33a36c2441d922a7639bc9b
fixes:
- note: Fixed implementation by checking for URL origin against current site patterns.
  commit: 8b3b54b44077ab0006038a2c785fe5c5072ecae0
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: 'Private information about other users were viewable by users that did not
      have to authenticate.

      '
    applies: true
  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:
- 3173018
- 2888015
- 2808051
- 3163014
- 3116011
upvotes: 3
mistakes:
  answer: "This looks like a classic example of software that had a minor vulnerability\nmost
    likely because the developers not wanting to put the time into fixing it.\nSome
    evidence: The VCC was made the day before Christmas (near the end of the \nwest-coast
    workday). The vulnerability was fixed by the first commit a contributor\nmade
    to the system. This is highly evident that it was some minor but annoying \nwork
    given to a new hire. The fix required a new development to be made, as well\nas
    minor other changes in different areas of the subsystem. The vulnerability\nexisted
    within the system for just under 2 years.\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 ing the software
    engineering industry would find interesting.
announced: '2010-09-07 14:00:02.637000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
  name: 'Extensions

    '
  answer: 'Internals Platform -> Extensions

    '
  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: '2010-06-04'
  answer: |
    The bug was discovered internally by the Chromium Team. There was not much public
    discussion on how the bug was found.
  google: true
  contest: false
  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: "A vulnerability allows remote attackers access to a private list of
  functional plug-ins \nadded to the application by the user.\n"
unit_tested:
  fix: true
  code: true
  answer: "It does not appear that testing was done autonomously for this section.
    The unit\ntests for this functionality did not account for this vulnerability,
    but were added \nafter the fix was made.\n"
  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 fixing commit was the user's first commit to the project, but has 96
    other commits to the system.\nThis means that he was probably and employee and
    not contracted. This means that this issue was probably\ngiven to the developer
    as a low risk/priority assignment soon after they came onto the project. This
    \nshows that the chromium team knew about the vulnerability (which was in the
    system for just under 2 years),\nwas a low priority fix.\n"
  events:
  - date: '2008-12-24'
    name: Vulnerability first introduced to the system. It was then left untouched
      for just under 2 years
  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 includes a comment above the vulnerable area about a different vulnerability that
      exists within the system.
    commit: aada7d5c6559f1b84b2a327f8a11a09651f3a69d
  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\ndescriptions are a fine start, but they can be kind of jargony.\n\nRewrite
  this description in your own words. Make it interesting and easy to\nread to anyone
  with some programming experience. We can always pull up the NVD\ndescription later
  to get more technical.\n\nTry to still be specific in your description, but remove
  Chromium-specific\nstuff. Remove references to versions, specific filenames, and
  other jargon\nthat outsiders to Chromium would not understand. Technology like \"regular\nexpressions\"
  is fine, and security phrases like \"invalid write\" are fine to\nkeep too. \n"