ID CVE-2013-0922
Summary Google Chrome before 26.0.1410.43 does not properly restrict brute-force access attempts against web sites that require HTTP Basic Authentication, which has unspecified impact and attack vectors.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.42
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.42
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.41
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.41
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.40
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.40
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.39
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.39
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.38
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.38
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.37
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.37
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.36
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.36
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.35
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.35
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.34
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.34
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.33
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.33
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.32
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.32
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.31
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.31
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.30
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.30
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.29
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.29
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.28
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.28
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.27
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.27
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.26
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.26
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.25
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.25
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.24
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.24
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.23
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.23
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.22
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.22
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.21
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.21
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.20
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.20
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.19
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.19
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.18
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.18
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.17
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.17
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.16
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.16
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.15
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.15
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.14
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.14
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.12
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.12
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.11
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.11
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.10
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.10
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.9
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.9
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.8
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.8
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.7
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.7
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.6
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.6
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.5
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.5
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.4
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.4
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.3
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.3
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.2
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.2
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.1
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.1
  • Google Chrome 26.0.1410.0
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:26.0.1410.0
CVSS
Base: 7.5 (as of 16-11-2016 - 12:38)
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-264
CAPEC
  • Accessing, Modifying or Executing Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an attacker to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an attacker to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
  • Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files, when the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high. The attack can be directed at a client system, such as causing buffer overrun through loading seemingly benign image files, as in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-028 where specially crafted JPEG files could cause a buffer overrun once loaded into the browser. Another example targets clients reading pdf files. In this case the attacker simply appends javascript to the end of a legitimate url for a pdf (http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/danger-danger-danger/) http://path/to/pdf/file.pdf#whatever_name_you_want=javascript:your_code_here The client assumes that they are reading a pdf, but the attacker has modified the resource and loaded executable javascript into the client's browser process. The attack can also target server processes. The attacker edits the resource or configuration file, for example a web.xml file used to configure security permissions for a J2EE app server, adding role name "public" grants all users with the public role the ability to use the administration functionality. The server trusts its configuration file to be correct, but when they are manipulated, the attacker gains full control.
  • Blue Boxing
    This type of attack against older telephone switches and trunks has been around for decades. A tone is sent by an adversary to impersonate a supervisor signal which has the effect of rerouting or usurping command of the line. While the US infrastructure proper may not contain widespread vulnerabilities to this type of attack, many companies are connected globally through call centers and business process outsourcing. These international systems may be operated in countries which have not upgraded Telco infrastructure and so are vulnerable to Blue boxing. Blue boxing is a result of failure on the part of the system to enforce strong authorization for administrative functions. While the infrastructure is different than standard current applications like web applications, there are historical lessons to be learned to upgrade the access control for administrative functions.
  • Restful Privilege Elevation
    Rest uses standard HTTP (Get, Put, Delete) style permissions methods, but these are not necessarily correlated generally with back end programs. Strict interpretation of HTTP get methods means that these HTTP Get services should not be used to delete information on the server, but there is no access control mechanism to back up this logic. This means that unless the services are properly ACL'd and the application's service implementation are following these guidelines then an HTTP request can easily execute a delete or update on the server side. The attacker identifies a HTTP Get URL such as http://victimsite/updateOrder, which calls out to a program to update orders on a database or other resource. The URL is not idempotent so the request can be submitted multiple times by the attacker, additionally, the attacker may be able to exploit the URL published as a Get method that actually performs updates (instead of merely retrieving data). This may result in malicious or inadvertent altering of data on the server.
  • Target Programs with Elevated Privileges
    This attack targets programs running with elevated privileges. The attacker would try to leverage a bug in the running program and get arbitrary code to execute with elevated privileges. For instance an attacker would look for programs that write to the system directories or registry keys (such as HKLM, which stores a number of critical Windows environment variables). These programs are typically running with elevated privileges and have usually not been designed with security in mind. Such programs are excellent exploit targets because they yield lots of power when they break. The malicious user try to execute its code at the same level as a privileged system call.
  • Manipulating Input to File System Calls
    An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
Access
VectorComplexityAuthentication
NETWORK LOW NONE
Impact
ConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
PARTIAL PARTIAL PARTIAL
nessus via4
  • NASL family Windows
    NASL id GOOGLE_CHROME_26_0_1410_43.NASL
    description The version of Google Chrome installed on the remote host is a version prior to 26.0.1410.43 and is, therefore, affected by the following vulnerabilities : - Use-after-free errors exist related to 'Web Audio' and the extension bookmarks API. (CVE-2013-0916, CVE-2013-0920) - An out-of-bounds read error exists related to the URL loader. (CVE-2013-0917) - An unspecified error exists related to 'drag and drop' actions and the developer tools. (CVE-2013-0918) - An unspecified error exists related to website process isolation. (CVE-2013-0921) - An error exists related to HTTP basic authentication and brute-force attacks. (CVE-2013-0922) - A memory safety issue exists related to the 'USB Apps' API. (CVE-2013-0923) - A permissions error exists related to extensions API and file permissions. (CVE-2013-0924) - URLs can be leaked to extensions even if the extension does not have the 'tabs' permission. (CVE-2013-0925) - An error exists related to 'active tags' and the paste action that has unspecified impact. (CVE-2013-0926)
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-15
    plugin id 65691
    published 2013-03-26
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=65691
    title Google Chrome < 26.0.1410.43 Multiple Vulnerabilities
  • NASL family Gentoo Local Security Checks
    NASL id GENTOO_GLSA-201309-16.NASL
    description The remote host is affected by the vulnerability described in GLSA-201309-16 (Chromium, V8: Multiple vulnerabilities) Multiple vulnerabilities have been discovered in Chromium and V8. Please review the CVE identifiers and release notes referenced below for details. Impact : A context-dependent attacker could entice a user to open a specially crafted website or JavaScript program using Chromium or V8, possibly resulting in the execution of arbitrary code with the privileges of the process or a Denial of Service condition. Furthermore, a remote attacker may be able to bypass security restrictions or have other, unspecified, impact. Workaround : There is no known workaround at this time.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-12
    plugin id 70112
    published 2013-09-25
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=70112
    title GLSA-201309-16 : Chromium, V8: Multiple vulnerabilities
  • NASL family FreeBSD Local Security Checks
    NASL id FREEBSD_PKG_BDD48858965611E2A9A800262D5ED8EE.NASL
    description Google Chrome Releases reports : [172342] High CVE-2013-0916: Use-after-free in Web Audio. Credit to Atte Kettunen of OUSPG. [180909] Low CVE-2013-0917: Out-of-bounds read in URL loader. Credit to Google Chrome Security Team (Cris Neckar). [180555] Low CVE-2013-0918: Do not navigate dev tools upon drag and drop. Credit to Vsevolod Vlasov of the Chromium development community. [Linux only] [178760] Medium CVE-2013-0919: Use-after-free with pop-up windows in extensions. Credit to Google Chrome Security Team (Mustafa Emre Acer). [177410] Medium CVE-2013-0920: Use-after-free in extension bookmarks API. Credit to Google Chrome Security Team (Mustafa Emre Acer). [174943] High CVE-2013-0921: Ensure isolated web sites run in their own processes. [174129] Low CVE-2013-0922: Avoid HTTP basic auth brute-force attempts. Credit to 't3553r'. [169981] [169972] [169765] Medium CVE-2013-0923: Memory safety issues in the USB Apps API. Credit to Google Chrome Security Team (Mustafa Emre Acer). [169632] Low CVE-2013-0924: Check an extension's permissions API usage again file permissions. Credit to Benjamin Kalman of the Chromium development community. [168442] Low CVE-2013-0925: Avoid leaking URLs to extensions without the tabs permissions. Credit to Michael Vrable of Google. [112325] Medium CVE-2013-0926: Avoid pasting active tags in certain situations. Credit to Subho Halder, Aditya Gupta, and Dev Kar of xys3c (xysec.com).
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2013-12-05
    plugin id 65850
    published 2013-04-08
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=65850
    title FreeBSD : chromium -- multiple vulnerabilities (bdd48858-9656-11e2-a9a8-00262d5ed8ee)
oval via4
accepted 2013-08-12T04:08:18.386-04:00
class vulnerability
contributors
  • name Shane Shaffer
    organization G2, Inc.
  • name Jonathan Baker
    organization The MITRE Corporation
  • name Maria Kedovskaya
    organization ALTX-SOFT
definition_extensions
comment Google Chrome is installed
oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:11914
description Google Chrome before 26.0.1410.43 does not properly restrict brute-force access attempts against web sites that require HTTP Basic Authentication, which has unspecified impact and attack vectors.
family windows
id oval:org.mitre.oval:def:16215
status accepted
submitted 2013-04-08T11:33:10.582-04:00
title Google Chrome before 26.0.1410.43 does not properly restrict brute-force access attempts against web sites that require HTTP Basic Authentication
version 43
refmap via4
confirm
Last major update 16-11-2016 - 14:33
Published 28-03-2013 - 08:18
Last modified 18-09-2017 - 21:35
Back to Top