CVE-2014-3154

CVE: CVE-2014-3154
CWE:
- 416
bugs:
- 369525
repo: https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/
vccs:
- note: |
    Authors worked on implementing a clean shutdown for parent thread,
    missed a child thread, which is not shutdown when parent is shutdown.
  commit: 0e7015f45f8d5c4d1ab18b391113cfc53c893544
- note: |
    Authors added regression test ensuring an 'abort' error code should
    never occur but missed case where it could occur and not be bad behavior.
  commit: 9cc2d329cebb9f1f87aba611d61dd9f21002393e
fixes:
- note: |
    Authors change parent thread to properly close all children on parent.
    closing
  commit: f14efc560a12a513696d6396413b138879dabd7a
- note: 'Authors remove unneeded regression test.

    '
  commit: 0d24b5aaa0249a569b7cb34b5e8fba9d62cf916f
bounty:
  date: '2014-06-10 13:23:00.000000000 -04:00'
  amount: 1000.0
  references:
  - http://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2014/06/stable-channel-update.html
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: 
    applies: 
  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:
- 270633009
- 267253008
- 286483004
upvotes: 9
mistakes:
  answer: |
    This mistake was two-fold. There was an erroneous assert statement, along
    with a case where a thread was not shut down properly.

    The unneeded assert statement was primarily due to a miscommunication, where
    a developer did not consider all the cases where a particular error could be
    sent out, or the code was later changed and the tests for that code were not
    changed along with it.

    The shutdown error was due to a design problem, where a thread was planned to
    be shutdown, but it did not have it's components properly planned out, and an
    attached child thread was left running after the parent was shut down. More
    rigourous documentation could have prevented this problem. The parent thread
    should have a list of child threads to ensure they are terminated at the same
    time as their parent thread.
  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: '2014-06-10'
subsystem:
  name: Blink
  answer: According to bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=369525
  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: '2014-05-02'
  answer: |
    Comments show that the vulnerability could be reproduced using a script and would
    trigger a Unit/Regression test. None of the documentation or conversation explicitly
    state how the original reporter discovered this vulnerability.

    None of the documentation or conversation state that this report stemmed from a contest.
    The reporter did not have a @chromium or @google domain for thier email.

    An automated testing system reproduced the vulnerability once the vulnerability
    was reported.
  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 in Chrome's shutdown sequenece. If Chrome is
  running\nJavaScript in a window, some of the valid commands are to write to files
  and\nto close the current window. \n\nWhen the window is closed, the window thread
  did not properly remove the thread\nwriting to files, even though the memory that
  writer was targeting had been freed.\nThe code that closed the window thread assumed
  that any files it had accessed would\nno longer be used.\n\nThe fix ensured that
  the shutdown sequenece of a window also properly shut\ndown the file writing component.\n"
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: true
  answer: "Comments show that the vulnerability was found by replicating an error
    with a\nscript and using a an automated Unit/Regression test.\n\nThe fix did not
    involve creating or adding a new unit test. In fact, part\nof a  regression test
    was removed since it was testing against a case that\ncould in fact happen in
    a good state and not be bad behavior.  \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.
  events:
    event:
    - 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: |
      Authors condensed two file writers into a single generic file writer.
      Regression test was modified to work with new generic file writer.
    commit: 5fe6278de329a23acb0dd6c9b2ea37989295ff6e
  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.