CVE-2010-4494

CVE: CVE-2010-4494
CWE:
- 415
- 643
bugs:
- 63444
repo: 
vccs:
- note: 
  commit: 
fixes:
- note: fix Xpath bug from upstream
  commit: 4b41418a14d224fcc3dcd8b1b5923920ea709d5c
bounty:
  date: Nov 17 2010
  amount: 
  references: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=63444
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: "The fix also tested the object before they free the object. It is necessary
      to validate if the object has been freed. \n"
    applies: true
  least_privilege:
    note: 
    applies: 
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: "The fix for this vulnerability involved putting an if statement to check
      on context object. \nThe developers plan to avoid to catch one of the few case
      to free the same memory twice. \n"
    applies: true
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: 
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
reviews:
- 5196003
- 5216001
upvotes: 
mistakes:
  answer: "Double free vulnerability is a common memory corruption error if the developers
    don't write a proper check case before they free memory\nIn this case, it seems
    like a developer simply forgot or was not aware of this. It can also be very hard
    to catch, as the chromium code base in incredibly large, and can not be easily
    combed through.\nI believe that the vulnerability was fixed correctly, as they
    understood the complete problem and fixed it properly. \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: '2010-12-07 16:00:09.720000000 -05:00'
subsystem:
  name: XML Xpath
  answer: This is XML Path language implementation in to address part of an XML document.
    It was designed to be used by both XSLT and XPointer, but because of this an object
    could be freed twice.
  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: Nov 17 2010
  answer: "The vulnerability was discovered by a user and he reported it to the dev
    team. \nSince they could not easily clone the entire repo, they left instructions
    for developers who could for multiple versions of chrome.\n"
  google: false
  contest: nil
  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: true
description: "There is a double free vulnerability in libxml2 2.7.8 and other version
  as used in gogole chrome before 8.0.552.215.\nThe vulnerability allows one to pop
  an XPath object off the stack, and since the object won't be null, it can be popped
  again.\nDouble free vulnerability is a common memory corruption error when developers
  free the same memory location twice by calling free() on the same\n allocated memory.
  \n\n This vulnerability may allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service
  or possibly have unspecified other impact relate to the Xpath in this case.\n"
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: true
  answer: |
    The fix did not involve automated tests.
    It appears that there is a unit test for the original code
  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: no major events observed.
  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: |
      Refactoring the project was performed by moving all upstream code into a src/ subdirectory.
      This helps keep all patches, build files, and metadata separate.
    commit: 681c85692a6421e1f288c329f80dcee25355dd7b
  - note: remove non working functions on os object and d8 window. Un-needed code
      should already be removed by default.
    commit: 6999dc89b49b7424f222e6888955d08efce52dde
  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.