CVE-2016-5150

CVE: CVE-2016-5150
CWE:
- 416
bugs:
- 637963
repo: 
vccs:
- note: "This was the VCC. Used git blame to backtrack all edits to the specific lines
    where vulnerability was discovered. \nThis commit actually created the file in
    which this vulnerability was found, IDBBindingUtilities.cpp.\n'* bindings/v8/IDBBindingUtilities.cpp:
    Added.'\nThe first person to touch the lines in question after this commit had
    identified the vulnerability and \nwas working on the fix.\n"
  commit: 4a6e97130def2b7f2827e5f0a2da58af857fee1d
fixes:
- note: ''
  commit: fb18204c77e3f6e43ce05dd3ce24f00e0201bac1
bounty:
  date: '2016-08-31 15:50:00.000000000 -04:00'
  amount: 5000.0
  references:
  - http://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2016/08/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_31.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: "The whole premise of this bug is that a malicious user could try to access
      memory that had already been freed.\nBy sanitizing and validating all user input,
      the developers were able to determine if that happening and prevent it.  \n"
    applies: true
  least_privilege:
    note: End Chrome users should not have access to the getter methods relevant to
      this vulnerability.
    applies: true
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: This lesson is applicable as the system should run security checks at several
      levels, even redundantly, to ensure the system has not been exploited.
    applies: true
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: 
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: Clearly, with a deeply obscured architecture, it would deter potential attackers
      from being able to access levels of the system that they need to exploit.
    applies: true
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: "This vulnerability was introduced via the includion of the IndexedDB API.
      Although the bug report is hidden,\nif it were the case that the developers
      of this library were unaware of specific\nedge cases that lead to the vulnerability.
      \nIf the Chrome developers had built it from scratch, they would have known
      of the potential threat. \n"
    applies: true
reviews:
- 2283023002
- 2255413004
upvotes: 
mistakes:
  answer: "As the bug report is not available, it is not clear whether this was a
    known issue\nwith the library, or if it was specific to v8's implementation of
    it.\nIf it were the latter, the mistake causing this vulnerability was improper
    implementation of 3rd\nparty library, IndexedDB, as the Google developers failed
    to restrict certain key-path evaluations, \nspecically getter calls made to prototypes.
    \n\nOn the other hand, if the library unknowingly contained the bug, then IndexedDB
    would\nbe at fault for not testing all edge cases when it came to their library's
    security.  \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: '2016-09-11 06:59:05.380000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
  name: v8
  answer: Based on the description in the CVE and path to source file.
  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: Tried to access bug report, permission denied. The earliest commit that
    I found with reference to this bus was committed on Tue Apr 28 2015
  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: "Properties are variable attributes of an object. Like color is a property
  for\nfor a Bird. Properties can also be inherented from their perent class. \nFor
  example, Bird can inheret properties from the Animal parent class.\n\n\nKey-paths
  are a way of storing uninvoked references to properties.\nThis means they refer
  to a property itself rather than to that property’s value. \n\nThe vulnerability
  was in Google's Javascript Engine, *V8*, in an API \nimplementation written in C.
  Getters using key-paths were\nnot restricted to inherited properties, allowing getters
  on prototypes\nto be executed. \n\nThis created a use-after-free vulnerability.
  Use After Free specifically refers to the \nattempt to access memory after it has
  been freed, which can cause a program to crash\nin the best case. \nWorst case,
  since this is a vulnerability in a JavaScript feature, attackers could \nexecute
  arbitrary code or even enable full remote code execution capabilities.\n"
unit_tested:
  fix: true
  code: true
  answer: |
    In the VCC it states, "The bindings tests show us that the generated bindings are what we expect."
    While there were unit tests performed, they likely did not test for the specific vulnerability exploits.
    Almost every commit that is dedicated to fixing this bug improved the automated tests.
  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: I did not see any major events during this time.
  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: 
  commits:
  - note: "Lots of logic was removed and added to the file. \nAdded 163 lines of edge
      case testing for our vulnerability, clearly these edge cases had been missed
      and\nboth the functional code and the testing were introduced in this commit.\nIt
      was interesting to see even in such large scale productions, effective unit
      tests that cover all edge cases are\ndifficult to create yet extremely important.
      \n"
    commit: c65e88c084b14e6478d74781096e9d91a73c6f0e
  - note: "Logic pertaining to null pointers was added. This was interesting as the
      Use and Free flaw has to do with access to \ndead memory, and this commit had
      its hand in fixing just that. \nAgain 228 lines of testing was introduced, demonstrating
      further edge cases were discovered and taken care of.\n"
    commit: eb8adaaf4f33fc4f6eb4d9d612916ac5d4f32075
  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.