CVE-2014-1702

CVE: CVE-2014-1702
CWE:
- 416
- 399
bugs:
- 333058
repo: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink/trunk/Source/modules/webdatabase/
vccs:
- note: ''
  commit: 
fixes:
- note: They were working on a fix for something else at the time.
  commit: e6e535be7e2d398058f1292f026e07252b3cd214
bounty:
  date: '2014-03-11 11:00:00.000000000 -04:00'
  amount: "$1000.0"
  references:
  - http://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2014/03/stable-channel-update_11.html
lessons:
  yagni:
    note: |
      You arent going to need it seems to fit this vulnerability. This vulnerability was
      created out of not thinking in detail and planning how to properly terminate and
      free threads at the end of their lifecycle. This would most likely have been left
      untouched until it was discovered.
    applies: true
  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: false
  complex_inputs:
    note: 
    applies: false
  distrust_input:
    note: 
    applies: false
  least_privilege:
    note: 
    applies: false
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: false
  defense_in_depth:
    note: 
    applies: false
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: false
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: false
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: false
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: false
reviews:
- 183093002
- 187923008
- 187623004
upvotes: 
mistakes:
  answer: |
    This appears to be a code mistake. There was only one line of code in one file
    that caused this vulnerability. This leads me to belive that this was simple a
    function that a programmer overlooked. They use the mitigation of setting pointers
    to null once they are freed. This prevents attackers from gaining accesss through
    improper termination of a terminating thread in the clean up process.
  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: '2014-03-16 10:06:45.380000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
  name: webdata
  answer: This file is part of the Blink Storage webdatabase subsystem.
  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: '2014-01-09'
  answer: |
    This bug was discovered by therealh...@gmail.com. The bug was hard to
    reproduce. ClusterFuzz and ASan were used to discover and reproduce this bug.
  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: true
description: |
  This vulnerability is of the free after use nature. When a task is running on a thread,
  and that task ends the thread is being shutdown. This vulnerability could allow an
  attacker to creat an denial of service. They leverage the improper handling of how
  these threads are terminated.
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: false
  answer: |
    The original code was not united tested and neither is the fix. The
    reason for this seems to be that it is difficult to unit test errors in the
    shutdown of threads.
  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 doesnt happen again.
major_events:
  answer: 
  events: |
    At this time in the project there seemed to be other bugs related to threading
    within webdatabase. Most notible The database thread was referencing itself, and was not
    empting the desctructor queue.
    name: Thread Bugs 323858 323858 301515
    date: '2013-11-28'
  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 doesnt 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: 0
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 is interesting because it is fixing another bug 328393 which
      is a problem with ThreadSanitization for database threads.
    commit: 8405686e41b020a757f63703c402baaf4d1f6dd7
  - 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.