CVE-2014-1740

CVE: CVE-2014-1740
CWE:
- 416
- 399
bugs:
- 358038
repo: 
vccs:
- note: "This commit was for lines 426 to 431 and were last touched in 2010 \nwhen
    the handshake request was reset and socket data length was changed. \nThese lines
    remained untouched for almost 4 years.\n"
  commit: 6a2c3677f12c18bcc1b57c37becd4e1149f0c8e4
- note: |
    This was the creation of lines 307 to line 309 which mostly remained untouched
    until the vulnerability was fixed.
  commit: 817fc50713c37fb0cb41fbc455d83fb40b40da7e
fixes:
- note: This seems to be the original commit before reverting
  commit: b39c954297097454a3b867c45cdad8a1577c761c
- note: This seems to be the commit for a revert due to "fix uses methods which did
    not exist in M34"
  commit: 4dc0eb2319ab5177f82d7d627610fbec098cf203
- note: "This is the commit of the fix only without the tests to ensure the \nvulnerability
    is fixed even if tests could not go through.\n"
  commit: 0f3f1ff9be2a58fdf817566aa05067018e784e40
bounty:
  date: '2014-05-13 12:00:00.000000000 -05:00'
  amount: 2000.0
  references:
  - http://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2014/05/stable-channel-update.html
lessons:
  yagni:
    note: 
    applies: false
  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:
- 235953018
- 221833002
- 257773004
- 264743015
- 255813002
upvotes: 
mistakes:
  answer: "This error was found because of the lack of testing. This test case itself
    \nseemed to be a fairly obscure case that I can easily see the team missing.\nThe
    evidence for this being an obscure edge case is further supported by the \ncode
    remaining unchanged for 4 years. The area was indeed unit \ntested so it was not
    for lack of testing per say that this was not found. \nA cursory internet search
    does not lead me to find the script the reporter used and \nit is likely they
    created the script themselves or was looking for this specific case \nand then
    made the script afterwards to confirm it.\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: '2014-05-14 07:13:05.943000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
  name:
  - net
  - websockets
  answer: |
    This vulnerability is located in the websockets part of the code directly
    related to tabs specifically in the Blink section of Chrome. Blink is
    Chromium's rendering software forked from Webkit.
  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: '2014-03-30'
  answer: "This vulnerability was discovered by someone who was outside the Chromium
    project, it would seem. \nThey provided information on how to replicate the bug
    in their detailed report. The report alluded this\nwas not part of the automated
    tests and needed to be added. The bug thread stated that ClusterFuzz\nshould not
    be used to test this vulnerability as it would not be able to replicate\nthe test
    case properly and needed to be done manually.\n"
  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: |
  This vulnerability was an example of trying to use memory after it has been discarded.
  It could lead to a crash of Chrome thus giving a denial of service attack and potentially
  others issues. The exploit affected ninety-three versions of Chrome. After being
  discovered, Google's AddressSanitizer was able to find the issue and detect the leak.
  While this vulnerability was fixed, the tests were never added due to other code they
  depended on not ready to be merged in.
unit_tested:
  fix: true
  code: true
  answer: "It seems as though the original was unit tested but more unit tests were
    added\nafter the vulnerability was found to ensure this would not happen again.
    An\nentire class was created to test this vulnerability. However, interestingly
    \nenough, the tests never made it to the last commits on the bug thread. I was\nunable
    to find if they ever added the tests later.\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: 'It seems like the team had some issues with getting the fix in and the
    tests

    '
  events:
  - date: '2010-03-01'
    name: Lines were added to the file for handling cookies and handshakes
  - date: '2013-06-01'
    name: Code was refactored to fix a separate bug
  - date: '2014-03-30'
    name: Vulnerability was discovered by a Google User
  - date: '2014-04-04'
    name: Vulnerability is considered fixed
  - date: '2014-04-16'
    name: Merge Approved
  - date: '2014-04-25'
    name: Code reverted due to some code not in production
  - date: '2014-05-03'
    name: Code merged but tests not merged
  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: "Line 308 was changed because of a separate bug with explicitly using get
      instead of \nimplicitly getting it. This is interesting because it seems to
      be the only \nplace this code was touched since it was created. This was also
      a year\nbefore this vulnerability was discovered.\n"
    commit: 90499486eb26f12da3456f01bd28abc4a6191ea4
  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.