CVE-2016-1696

CVE: CVE-2016-1696
CWE:
- 284
- 346
- 254
bugs:
- 601073
repo: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/
vccs:
- note: They were working on a fix for something else at the time.
  commit: d8c5fbbbf6cec9dee5524494506cfd8ad73281b1
fixes:
- note: ''
  commit: a794ae416acf94cb247d8ca0e8554863f5d9c1d8
bounty:
  date: '2016-06-01 17:16:00.000000000 -04:00'
  amount: 7500.0
  references:
  - http://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2016/06/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: |
      The vulnerability was caused since the principle of least privilege was
      violated. When assigning access rights to entities in a software system,
      use separation of privilege so that the principle of least privilege
      will be followed.
    applies: true
  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:
- 2025093003
- 1883893003
- 2026443002
upvotes: 2
mistakes:
  answer: |
    The CWE ID for this vulnerability is 346, and is titled Origin Validation
    Error. This vulnerability was caused due to not enforcing the Same-Origin
    policy. Looking at the code review, we see that the developers had an
    in-depth discussion and recognizd that there were files not being used, and
    new native handlers were made for the extensions. In order to prevent these
    types of vulnerabilities, a potential mitigation would be to separate
    privileges. Following the principle of least privilege during the
    design/coding process would've fixed this issue. In order to ensure this
    issue doesn't occur again, the developers expanded their bindings access
    checks. These checks will enforce the Same-Origin policy and make sure that
    the source is checked, and that malicious websites cannot be loaded.
    Preventing Origin Validation Errors by testing the origin will lead to a
    safer system, and prevent attackers from gaining access to undesired
    functionality. This vulnerability is very similar to CVE-2016-1622 in
    regards to the type of malicious actions that attackers can perform.
  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: '2016-06-05 19:59:26.260000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
  name: Extensions
  answer: Based on the description in the CVE and code review.
  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: 
  answer: |
    The bug report was private, so discovery information is hidden. The bug was
    discovered by 'anonymous' and the reward was $7500.
  google: 
  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: 
description: |
  Remote attackers could bypass the Same-Origin Policy via unspecified vectors
  since the Extensions subsystem in Google Chrome didn't properly restrict
  bindings access.
  The Same-Origin policy states that web browser scripts can access data in a
  second web page, but only if they have the same origin. Bypassing the
  Same-Origin policy means that data confidentiality or integrity could be lost.
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: false
  answer: |
    From looking at the code where the fix occurred, it's not clear that unit
    tests were used, and the fix commit doesn't add a new test for testing
    this vulnerability. Looking at the fix commit's description, no unit test
    files are updated or added.
  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: Developers verified context to prevent cross-origin references.
  events:
  - date: '2016-04-15'
    name: Developers added a check to verify return values are accessible by the context.
  - 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: This added more bindings access checks to fix a bug that allowed XSS.
    commit: 14ff9d0cded8ae8032ef027d1f33c6666a695019
  - 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.