CVE-2016-5171

CVE: CVE-2016-5171
CWE:
- 470
- 416
bugs:
- 643357
repo: 
vccs:
- note: ''
  commit: 4c5a59e1c3ca19734d09d71a174a925f61bd24aa
- note: ''
  commit: ebff986b4bd9cbe0b0328adaf86dc69964945173
fixes:
- note: ''
  commit: e2247f1ab98f3393373232cde1538879b2f9dee9
bounty:
  date: '2016-09-13 15:04:00.000000000 -04:00'
  amount: 7500.0
  references:
  - http://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2016/09/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_13.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: 
    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: |
      Though it might not be a framework, I thought this would be the best
      section to bring up a custom test creation. Though one needs to make there
      own tests, you can use testing tools/packages to make it easier, efficent
      and more reliable to test code.
    applies: true
reviews:
- 2308383002
- 2306023002
- 2336483002
upvotes: 1
mistakes:
  answer: "What seemed to lead to this vulnerability not being found was using their
    \nown testing class and methods instead of incorperating already created \ntesting
    options. This is seen at the final commit of this code, where all \nof the custom
    testing methods mode were deleted.\n\nThis was created by one person (for the
    most part), and I think this person\neither did not know about testing packages
    out there, or did not want to\nuse them. I think this shows that using packages
    or reliable code from\nothers is ok to do in the right situation. This would have
    saved a lot of\ntime and effort if it was done right away.\n\nI wasn't unable
    to really figure out what was going on, but it seemed to be \na very simple fix
    to get this vulnerability fixed. When defining the local\nV8 template variable,
    they made a funciton value without specifing the parameter,\n\"V8ObjectConstructor::isValidConstructorMode\".
    Maybe an extra parameter was added\nin later to allow for specific constructors
    to have their specific functions, but\nit is very unclear from the code that I
    saw.\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: '2016-09-25 16:59:03.043000000 -04:00'
subsystem:
  name: WebKit
  answer: I used the path of the file to find the module it was in.
  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: |
    "I was not able to view the issue. Site said:
    'You do not have permission to view the requested page.
    Reason: User is not allowed to view this issue' "
  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: "WebKit/Source/bindings/templates/interface.cpp allows for constructor
  calls to be\nused, when that constuctor shouldn't be allowed. If able to get a constructor
  to\nmake one of these illegal calls, it can cause the particalar system to crash
  or \nstop working, causing a denial of service.\n"
unit_tested:
  fix: true
  code: true
  answer: |
    From what it looks like, there are two tests that are being used to test if
    this code is now working. I couldn't find if these tests were created
    before or after the finding of the vulnerability.
  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: |
    Based off of the git log, there did not seem to be any major events that
    occured right before the vulnerability was 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: 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: |
      This is the only other commit that I saw between the two VCCs and the fix
      commit. This commit seemed to have changed to either a new testing
      package or class or something (testRunner instead of
      layoutTestController). This was a massive change, because it affected
      "doctypes", "dom", "dynmaic", "encoding", "events", "eventsource", and "
      "exclusions tests" directories all inside of the "fast" directory. This
      was the done 4 years before the vulnerability was found! So I am unsure
      if this was really the cause of the vulenrability or not.
    commit: ebff986b4bd9cbe0b0328adaf86dc69964945173
  - 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.