CVE-2015-1295

CVE: CVE-2015-1295
CWE:
- 20
bugs:
- 502562
repo: 
vccs:
- note: 'Apparently there was an issue with the PrintWebViewHelper not handling nested
    IPC. This could result to nested message loops which would eventually cause denial
    of service.

    '
  commit: 88b0e27b63f88b21538ffd0531d08ba043ee1189
fixes:
- note: ''
  commit: 8fa5a358cb32085b51daf92df8fd4a79b3931f81
bounty:
  date: '2015-09-01 15:15:00.000000000 -04:00'
  amount: 3000.0
  references:
  - http://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2015/09/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: this vulnerability was recieving input that resulted in denial of service.
    applies: true
  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:
- 1228693002
- 1246673005
upvotes: 5
mistakes:
  answer: 'The vulnerability seemed to be caused by a lack of managing input. Because
    the file didnt'' correctly handle nested ICP people were potentially able to cause
    crashes by printing out messages. The vulnerability alone was already causing
    issues alone just by a user loading up a specific file. In short, always make
    sure your design is able to handle any potential input it may recieve.

    '
  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: '2015-09-03 18:59:05.703000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
  name: 
  answer: 
  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: '2015-06-20'
  name: "/components/printing/renderer/"
  answer: This was mainly in the renderer folder of the printing component. Only two
    files were impacted.
  google: false
  contest: false
  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"
  automated: false
description: When opening a PDF file into chromium, the client would pause for the
  few seconds and give a message. Upon hitting OK or escape, chromium would crash.
  This was due to the program not handling ICP correctly.
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: true
  answer: Yes, in /components/printing/test/ there are a few files that test rendering
    and PrintWebViewHelper.
  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: There wasn't too many changes, just a small change that dealt with IPC management.
    The code was not rewritten. Only two files were modified. The team generally remained
    the same. Vitalybuka (owner of the conversation on bugs.chromium.org) was seen
    active often.
  events:
  - date: '2015-06-20'
    name: vulnerability found
  - date: '2015-07-09'
    name: files 'print_web_view_helper.cc' and 'print_web_view_helper.h' were modified
      to handle nested IPC.
  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: This was the last recorded commit of the bug. Here is where the problem
      could be found that allowed the vulnerability to happen due to PrintWebViewHelper
      not handling nested IPC.
    commit: 88b0e27b63f88b21538ffd0531d08ba043ee1189
  - note: CHECK_LE function was added to most methods in both files associated with
      the fix. ipc_nesting_level was also added and managed throughout each file.
    commit: 8fa5a358cb32085b51daf92df8fd4a79b3931f81
  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.