CVE-2024-7965
Inappropriate implementation in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 128.0.6613.84 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML…
High
Known exploited
- Severity
- 8.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 18.53%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 97.25% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Aug 28, 2024
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Google Chromium V8 Inappropriate Implementation Vulnerability (Google Chromium V8). Required action: Apply mitigations per vendor instructions or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Due for U.S. federal agencies by Sep 18, 2024.
Description
Inappropriate implementation in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 128.0.6613.84 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (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 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-358: Improperly Implemented Security Check for Standard
The product does not implement or incorrectly implements one or more security-relevant checks as specified by the design of a standardized algorithm, protocol, or technique.
CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- 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. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Operation, Build and Compilation: Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
- Implementation: Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory: Double check that the buffer is as large as specified. When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string. Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer in a loop and make sure there is no danger of writing past the allocated space. If necessary, truncate all input strings to a reasonable length before passing them to the copy and concatenation functions.
- Operation, Build and Compilation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking. For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
- Operation: Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment. For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
- Implementation: Replace unbounded copy functions with analogous functions that support length arguments, such as strcpy with strncpy. Create these if they are not available.
References
Advisories
Issue reports
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
- Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-f749-vhgx-39h6 Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-70174 - .NET and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | High | Same weakness, CWE-358 |
| GHSA-9c3j-xm6v-j7j3 MantisBT has a Content Security Policy bypass via attachments | High | Same weakness, CWE-358 |
| GHSA-26hh-7cqf-hhc6 Next.js has a Middleware / Proxy bypass in App Router applications via segment-prefetch routes - Incomplete Fix Follow-Up | High | Same weakness, CWE-358 |
| GHSA-37gf-gmxv-74wv Keycloak fails to verify if an Identity Provider (IdP) is enabled before issuing tokens | High | Same weakness, CWE-358 |
| GHSA-f5h4-wmp5-xhg6 Client Spoofing within the Keycloak Device Authorisation Grant | High | Same weakness, CWE-358 |
| GHSA-cqvm-j2r2-hwpg russh may use insecure Diffie-Hellman keys | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-358 |
| GHSA-372q-33vh-8mpc Inconsistent documentation in Apache Tomcat | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-358 |
| GHSA-cmwx-9m2h-x7v4 Ansible apt_key module does not properly verify key fingerprint | High | Same weakness, CWE-358 |
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