Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

CVE-2023-6345

Integer overflow in Skia in Google Chrome prior to 119.0.6045.199 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to potentially perform a…

Critical Known exploited
Severity
9.6 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
16.47%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 96.99% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
Yes
In CISA's catalog since Nov 30, 2023
Weakness
CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound
CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Google Skia Integer Overflow Vulnerability (Google Chromium Skia). Required action: Apply mitigations per vendor instructions or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Due for U.S. federal agencies by Dec 21, 2023.

Description

Integer overflow in Skia in Google Chrome prior to 119.0.6045.199 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to potentially perform a sandbox escape via a malicious file. (Chromium security severity: High)

How to fix

No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 9.6

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound

The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
  • Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences. Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]
  • Implementation: Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range. Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.
  • Implementation: Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7] Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Implementation: Examine compiler warnings closely and eliminate problems with potential security implications, such as signed / unsigned mismatch in memory operations, or use of uninitialized variables. Even if the weakness is rarely exploitable, a single failure may lead to the compromise of the entire system.

CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound

The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
  • Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences. Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]
  • Implementation: Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range. Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.
  • Implementation: Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7] Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Implementation: Examine compiler warnings closely and eliminate problems with potential security implications, such as signed / unsigned mismatch in memory operations, or use of uninitialized variables. Even if the weakness is rarely exploitable, a single failure may lead to the compromise of the entire system.

References

Advisories

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
  3. Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
  4. Last updated by the source
  5. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-4642-5mcj-2rqw
Forge: ASN.1 OID first arc truncation in asn1.oidToDer
Low Same weakness, CWE-190
GHSA-4rm8-3hmm-39fg
Pillow: Reachable undefined behavior in native integer operations, potentially leading to denial of service or logic integrity compromise
Medium Same weakness, CWE-190
GHSA-f63g-mx39-3r38
Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-85363 - .NET and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
High Same weakness, CWE-190
CVE-2026-97229
Integer Overflow or Wraparound in GitLab
Critical Known exploited Same weakness, CWE-190
RUSTSEC-2026-0314
Guest can panic host through filesystem datetime overflow
Medium Same weakness, CWE-190
GHSA-p6m2-r3w9-mpxw
rclone local: crafted Range request against a translated symlink panics (DoS)
Medium Same weakness, CWE-190
EEF-CVE-2026-82737
Ash.Vector wraps the 16-bit dimension header for vectors over 65,535 elements, corrupting data and crashing reads
Not rated yet Same weakness, CWE-190
GHSA-mrpp-v6pg-p54x
klever-go: SFT add-quantity `int64` overflow bypasses a finite per-nonce MaxSupply
High Same weakness, CWE-190
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor