CVE-2011-1413

CVE: CVE-2011-1413
CWE:
- 20
bugs:
- 49747
repo: 
vccs:
- note: Initial commit for the file which didn't keep string length in mind
  commit: 733d0c499d1a6c4dbc20ed1bf998337b6f1fb8b4
fixes:
- note: ''
  commit: 807aa93835fa0ada2ccbe849fbc1bb4b5cf7fb46
- note: Added unit testing for compressed strings
  commit: 173293170c18302eae5d2cf77d995daad74d4db1
- note: ''
  commit: 8e574740bffe5733dfdb9960eeff6b5b47e384f3
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: "The vulnerability was exposed through the use of using exceedingly large
      inputs, that were previously unchecked by \nthe browser itself. No validation
      or sanitation pertaining to this particular case was being done prior to the
      \nvulnerability being fixed.\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:
- 5718003
- 3026024
- 6017001
- 5682002
- 5693002
- 5893002
- 5935002
- 5796003
upvotes: 4
mistakes:
  answer: "The coding mistake that was made was essentially an unmanaged javascript
    alert\nthat was allowing remote users to create large inputs to be displayed in
    the alert, \ncausing both the browser and x-server itself to crash unexpectedly.\n\nWhen
    the vulnerability was introduced, it looks as if the boundary case of a long input\nbeing
    used in alerts was not being covered, allowing this vulnerability to expose itself.\n\nThe
    chromium team is in adherance to the mitigations documented on the CWE page for
    \nthis vulnerability fix. The inputs being used in javascript alerts is now being
    checked\nfor length, thus working around the previous crashes.\n\nFor this part
    of the UI, dealing with alert window width and sanitizing/validating\ninputs being
    used in the alerts is necessary in order to keep the linux x-server working\nas
    intended\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: '2010-07-21'
subsystem:
  name: UI
  answer: Based on the bugs.chromium.org post as well as developer commits surrounding
    the bug
  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: Jul 21, 2010
  answer: Reported by user
  google: false
  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: "(Linux Only) A malicious user could remotely construct a relatively
  long string.\nUpon creating the string, the user could then use it with the javascript
  alert \nfunction, or use it with an input that could be displayed in an alert. As
  a result, \nthe display server could crash and lock up the open chrome windows on
  the target device, \nrequiring a reboot (Denial of Service).\n"
unit_tested:
  fix: true
  code: true
  answer: "When the vulnerability was fixed, unit testing was performed to test \nthe
    now compressed/sanitized strings\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: |
    I did not see any major events during the life of this vulnerability. After
    the initial bug discovery and post on the chromium bug tracker, there was
    little that happened up until the fix was committed and released.
  events:
  - date: 
    name: 
  - date: 
    name: 
  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: They worked on the design of the windows and dialogs
    commit: 9a2c26235dda5f54a8af490b19213233b05da57e
  - note: 
    commit: 
  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.