CVE-2015-1227

CVE: CVE-2015-1227
CWE:
- 665
- 399
bugs:
- 450389
repo: 
vccs:
- note: Another method for allocating memory was put in to be used as a shortcut.
    The previous method was called 'allocPixels()'. I'd venture to say that this method
    went through the proper steps needed to allocate memory as needed for the object's
    member variables whereas the new method 'allocN32Pixels()' does not initialize
    the pixel memory.
  commit: bae256e8fd989e56c95ed4f664836f63bbf8946e
fixes:
- note: A unit test is added to ensure that the bug fix works. It recreates the set
    of conditions needed in order to test the code in question.
  commit: 3babc5c0b3d02db9e2798ec22a32deb8e97081b1
- note: The object that has the unallocated memory is now cleared to get to a safe
    state.
  commit: 80636b85932f429456f5a6e92312facea12a846b
bounty:
  date: '2015-03-03 15:53:00.000000000 -05:00'
  amount: 1000.0
  references:
  - http://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2015/03/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: The vulnerability involved image rendering taking in various kinds of inputs.
      One issue with the orientation opened up the vulnerability.
    applies: true
  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:
- 872923003
- 899453003
- 877553011
- 901223002
- 897243004
upvotes: 4
mistakes:
  answer: This vulnerability came from a design flaw. In this situation, the allocation
    of memory depended on image orientation. The if clause did seem to account for
    if the allocation failed. However, the state of the object allocating memory resulted
    in improper initialization. They should have made sure that the specific function
    didn't depend on that case.
  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: '2015-03-08 20:59:20.420000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
  name: blink
  answer: The mistake was in the graphics subsystem of Blink (Google's fork of WebKit),
    the new rendering engine Google was integrating in for use within Google Chrome.
  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: '2015-01-22'
  answer: |
    Found by an external fuzzer application called 'Cdiehl_peach'. The fuzzer
    was able to spot the use of an uninitialized value.
  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: true
description: |
  The function for dragging an image reuslts in an improper initialization that
  could result in unallocated memory that is then accessed. This is turn causes
  a failed image decoding that remote attackers can trigger. While the
  impact of that is unspecified the default orientation for the image cannot be
  used.
unit_tested:
  fix: true
  code: true
  answer: |
    There were unittests for the module but none existing originally to test
    the situation in which the vulnerability occurs. When the fix was made, a
    unit test was added to test that particular situation as well as a helper
    function to include image orientation in the test.
  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: No major events were found.
  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: In this commit, the code was switched to use 'tryAllocN32Pixels()' instead
      of 'allocN32Pixels()'. The commit shows that they wanted to check the result
      of the allocN32Pixels method call. However, I don't think it was related to
      this bug that they would find later on.
    commit: cc7b4497bba5520a962000eeec68e9904b89353e
  - 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.