CVE-2014-3803

CVE: CVE-2014-3803
CWE:
- 200
- 359
bugs:
- 360448
repo: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src
vccs:
- note: This enabled the SpeechInput feature which had the vulnerability
  commit: 0a4bce1f3e2fceefbe972b9332c526939036ab97
fixes:
- note: Reverts the previous commit attempting to disable the vulnerable feature
  commit: 6bbc7313bdf5e4f55b21fa43fcfcdc7a5b17ba0b
- note: |
    Makes the x-webkit-speech feature test only, which had the vulnerability
    described. This feature was deprecated in Feb 2014 and was planned to be
    removed in the future.
  commit: 0df37ad14f8f44872a6491fd6e6e2579d67a0757
- note: Disables SpeechInput features and tests
  commit: 95de89b65d41d295dc2d4354e6bc04a4abc98705
bounty:
  date: 
  amount: 
  references: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=360448
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: |
      There could have been a more complex and sophisticated security
      design surrounding the speech input api. Users needed to click an
      authorization button to enable microphone access, but some sites could make
      this authorization click take up the whole screen and make the notification
      invisible.
    applies: true
  secure_by_default:
    note: |
      The system should not access the microphone input by default and make
      thee user authorization the enable microphone input very clear to the user
      the ensure they understand the request and give consent.
    applies: true
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
reviews:
- 266193005
- 231723004
- 231323003
- 262793004
- 235423004
- 274173002
- 232773009
upvotes: 8
mistakes:
  answer: |
    This vulnerability could have been prevented if the x-webkit-speech
    feature was removed shortly after becoming deprecated. When they decided to
    deprecate this feature, there was mention that it would later be removed,
    but with no specific deadline or date to do it by. The fix was to disable
    this deprecated feature, which was successful in fixing this vulnerability.
  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: '2014-05-21 07:14:10.113000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
  name: Blink
  answer: |
    The mistake was in the Blink project, which is the rendering engine used by
    Chromium. More specifically, the mistake was a part of the SpeechInput
    feature in Blink.
  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: '2014-04-07'
  answer: |
    Found and reported by the user guy...@gmail.com. A Proof of Concept was given
    as http://guya.net/security/speech/. This site demonstrated that when a user
    clicked on a large button upon entering the site, it would begin recording
    microphone input without any indication to the 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: |
  Blink, the rendering engine used by Chromium, has a feature which
  allows for attackers to enable microphone access and obtain speech-recognition
  text from users. This can be done by using an INPUT element which uses a
  deprecated attribute.
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: true
  answer: |
    Yes, this code should have been tested with unit tests, however the
    specific feature was deprecated, so it was removed in the fix and the tests
    were disabled.
  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: 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: 
    commit: 
  - 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.