CVE-2010-4490

CVE: CVE-2010-4490
CWE:
- 119
bugs:
- 62127
repo: 
vccs:
- note: This VCC was decently large and had other checks and unit testing, but none
    for checking the index length.
  commit: 61374e50e3714c93ef130aea5f0b35cd4b8bca3e
fixes:
- note: |
    The fix checked to make sure that the stream index was less than the size
    of the array holding the streams.
  commit: 4df400db387b816286d2a6b1519b9d4720e83393
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: |
      The video streams are complex, and they were unsure if it was directly the
      cause of a malformed stream or if there was another cause that made it get into
      a bad state.
    applies: true
  distrust_input:
    note: They incorrectly assumed all of the indexes they were given would be within
      range
    applies: true
  least_privilege:
    note: 
    applies: 
  native_wrappers:
    note: |
      Using C as a development language allowed for the buffer overflow to cause segmentation faults
      which allowed crashes to occur
    applies: true
  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:
- 4635003
- 4619001
upvotes: 6
mistakes:
  answer: "The mistake they made was a logic mistake in which they did not include
    an edge case\nto check for malformed streams which allowed for the buffer overflow
    vulnerability to exist\ndue to indexing that may be bigger than the stream size.
    It was understandable that this \nwould be overlooked because the module is complex.
    In the bug log, they discussed their \nconcerns whether a malformed stream could
    have cause this vulnerability or if it got into\na bad state due a previous root
    cause."
  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: '2010-12-07 16:00:09.423000000 -05:00'
subsystem:
  name: ffmpeg
  answer: |
    Media filter in the media/filters directory.  Refered to as ffmpeg in the
    code review
  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: '2010-11-05'
  answer: |
    The vulnerability was found by miaubiz@gmail.com.  Their use profile has
    no information about them but they have been involved in solving many chromium
    vulnerabilities.
  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 malformed video could cause the application to crash by creating an
  indexing error.  A malformed video stream could have a stream index that is too
  large.  An attempt to index by this stream index would cause a buffer overflow.  In
  this scenario the buffer overflow was causing a denial of service because it was
  causing a segmentation fault resulting in the tab crashing.  A buffer overflow is
  also potentially vulnerable to data corruption or malicious code execution.
unit_tested:
  fix: true
  code: true
  answer: |
    There was unit testing for this code but it did not cover this vulnerability.
    In the fix a test case was added to cover this.
  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: |
    There were a lot of fixes between this history of this vulnerability. There were no significant changes
    but rather fixes for many different subsystems
  events:
  - date: Mon Oct 25 16:26:10 2010
    name: Fix crash in domui menu (7773) and remove caching code.
  - date: Mon Oct 25 16:15:21 2010
    name: Fix double install and incorrect uninstall of external extensions.
  - date: Sun Oct 24 16:16:08 2010
    name: |
      Fixed positioning of control buttons on overlay pages. Missing file from
      wifi/cellular button fix.
  - date: Sat Oct 23 00:49:35 2010
    name: Fix remoting to use scoped_refptr.
  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: "In these commits, the changes were modifications in the ffmepg revision
      number which meant the development team\nwere actively modifying and changing
      the video stream and its revisions. Evidently, these commits occured during
      the \nday the vulnerability was discovered which meant they were working on
      the clock to resolve this.\n"
    commit: 5b6900eac8603392005b21401bd2355d302cf007, 10b3feec4c728a5f589082ed408af0a1cb86419e,
      5fb25bc72d746e29e527ccbee218aacbf2a9a7af
  - note: |
      In this case, a test case was created for ffmepg which is the video stream. Since this commit was on the day the vulnerability
      was discovered, it probably means the development team were testing the fix for the vulnerability.
    commit: fed4f3bc7453aabc7448247f43f6aedfcbcfb704
  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.