CVE-2014-3189

CVE: CVE-2014-3189
CWE:
- 264
- 125
bugs:
- 398384
repo: 
vccs:
- note: "Author jam@chromium.org <jam@chromium.org@0039d316-1c4b-4281-b951-d872f2087c98>
    \nDate   Tue May 20 01:56:40 2014 +0000\n\n  Add the pdf plugin's source in src\\pdf.\n
    \ \n  I've updated gypi files to not use internal_pdf variable anymore, which
    was brought in from pdf repo's supplemental.gypi.\n  \n  R=thestig@chromium.org\n
    \ TBR=darin\n  \n  Review URL https://codereview.chromium.org/294793003\n  \n
    \ git-svn-id svn://svn.chromium.org/chrome/trunk/src@271531 0039d316-1c4b-4281-b951-d872f2087c98\n"
  commit: 1b1e9effe9fa3b66dd1bcfff4b78455460f66c61
fixes:
- note: "Author tsepez <tsepez@chromium.org>\nDate   Wed Sep 3 16:17:49 2014 -0700\n\n
    \ Avoid OOB memcpy in chrome_pdf::CopyImage.\n  \n  This is a re-work of palmer's
    patch at https://codereview.chromium.org/515023002/ which has more context, but
    comes down to stricter bounds checking.\n  \n  We also correct an arithmetic bug
    when copying the image behind a control that is positioned before the origin of
    the image.\n  \n  BUG=398384\n  \n  Review URL https://codereview.chromium.org/519873002\n
    \ \n  Cr-Commit-Position refs/heads/master@{#293213}\n"
  commit: d734d197bb5462a65c37b17594a8c8d07dd79bc1
bounty:
  date: '2014-10-07 16:12:00.000000000 -04:00'
  amount: 3000.0
  references:
  - http://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2014/10/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: |
      The implementor of the vulnerable function should have have written it
      with the mindset that other security controls in place are vulnerable. If they
      had this mindset it might have lead to more checking on the passed parameters
      to the function to make sure they made sense.
    applies: true
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: 
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
reviews:
- 602173003
- 519873002
upvotes: 2
mistakes:
  answer: "The mistake that led to this vulnerability was not sufficiently testing
    the \npdf plugin source before introducing it into the chromium codebase. In terms\nof
    the plugin itself one could also say that this has the design mistake of \nnot
    implementing proper boundry checking of incoming parameters.\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: '2014-10-08 06:55:06.300000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
  name: pdf
  answer: Internals-Plugins-PDF
  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: '2014-07-29'
  answer: "This bug was discovered by a test case provided by a user who goes by the
    alias cloudfuzzer. It was able to get a chrome tab to crash\nby rendering a pdf
    file into an HTML element with specific x,y values set. This user was also credited
    with other similar bugs relating to \nan out of bounds read (CVE-2014-7944, CVE-2014-7945).
    It is also interesting to note that these two additional CVEs were involving PDFium.\nA
    bounty was paid to cloudfuzzer. It is not clear exactly how cloudfuzzer found
    this vulnerability, although it looks like a fuzzer tool \nwas at play.\n"
  google: false
  contest: ''
  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: "An out of bounds read occurs when data is read past its intended boundries.
  In the\ncase of this particular vulnerability, a function responsible for copying
  an image to\nknown destination was able to preform an out of bounds read. This was
  allowed by\nnot checking that the size of the image you want to copy makes sense.
  This is done by\nchecking for negative x,y values and also making sure that size
  wise, it could be contained within\nthe data being passed in as the source data.
  Not having these checks \nin place allows either a buffer overflow to occur by reading
  and trying to store \na mass amount of unintended data, as well as has the possibiliy
  of producing\nsegmentation faults by reading outside the program's assigned memory
  which could lead to a denial of service.\nMost importantly, this vulnerability could
  be leveraged to allow leaks of sensitive information. Since\nyou are able to read
  outside intended boundaries, one could read around to try and find sensitive data
  contained\nwithin a particular processes assigned memory region.\n"
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: false
  answer: There appears to be a replication test case provided in the bug report but
    no automated unit testing seems to be at play here.
  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: 
  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: "Two commits that are sit between the fix commit and the VCC are interesting
    because they\nall share fixes to bugs; the VCC in the case being when the plugin
    sourcre was introduced\nto chromium. The point here being that it appears as though
    this code was introduced \nbefore being tested or with very little testing done.\n"
  commits:
  - note: "Author sadrul@chromium.org <sadrul@chromium.org@0039d316-1c4b-4281-b951-d872f2087c98>\nDate
      \  Wed Aug 20 02:44:41 2014 +0000\n\n  pdf Early out from CopyImage if there's
      nothing to copy.\n  \n  If CopyImage is called with src is an empty rectangle
      (this can happen for\n  example if one of the resources is not available), then
      the code ends up trying\n  to read from null/uninitialized memory. So early
      out instead in such cases.\n  \n  BUG=401242\n  R=thestig@chromium.org\n  \n
      \ Review URL https://codereview.chromium.org/465133005\n  \n  Cr-Commit-Position
      refs/heads/master@{#290736}\n  git-svn-id svn://svn.chromium.org/chrome/trunk/src@290736
      0039d316-1c4b-4281-b951-d872f2087c98\n"
    commit: '09555f6952ea240c33452dd0ee1575bc26f73195'
  - note: "Author palmer@chromium.org <palmer@chromium.org@0039d316-1c4b-4281-b951-d872f2087c98>\nDate
      \  Wed Jul 16 20:15:51 2014 +0000\n\n  Fix potential integer overflow when initializing
      Rect.\n  \n  BUG=350782\n  \n  Review URL https://codereview.chromium.org/385173004\n
      \ \n  git-svn-id svn://svn.chromium.org/chrome/trunk/src@283481 0039d316-1c4b-4281-b951-d872f2087c98\n"
    commit: 899bbef82cc9477e59870bcfcb2e4c6418d17d2a
  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.