ID CVE-2016-2845
Summary The Content Security Policy (CSP) implementation in Blink, as used in Google Chrome before 49.0.2623.75, does not ignore a URL's path component in the case of a ServiceWorker fetch, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information about visited web pages by reading CSP violation reports, related to FrameFetchContext.cpp and ResourceFetcher.cpp.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116
    cpe:2.3:a:google:chrome:48.0.2564.116
CVSS
Base: 5.0 (as of 07-03-2016 - 14:12)
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-200
CAPEC
  • Subverting Environment Variable Values
    The attacker directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The attacker's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the attacker.
  • Footprinting
    An attacker engages in probing and exploration activity to identify constituents and properties of the target. Footprinting is a general term to describe a variety of information gathering techniques, often used by attackers in preparation for some attack. It consists of using tools to learn as much as possible about the composition, configuration, and security mechanisms of the targeted application, system or network. Information that might be collected during a footprinting effort could include open ports, applications and their versions, network topology, and similar information. While footprinting is not intended to be damaging (although certain activities, such as network scans, can sometimes cause disruptions to vulnerable applications inadvertently) it may often pave the way for more damaging attacks.
  • Exploiting Trust in Client (aka Make the Client Invisible)
    An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by placing themselves in the communication channel between client and server such that communication directly to the server is possible where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
  • Browser Fingerprinting
    An attacker carefully crafts small snippets of Java Script to efficiently detect the type of browser the potential victim is using. Many web-based attacks need prior knowledge of the web browser including the version of browser to ensure successful exploitation of a vulnerability. Having this knowledge allows an attacker to target the victim with attacks that specifically exploit known or zero day weaknesses in the type and version of the browser used by the victim. Automating this process via Java Script as a part of the same delivery system used to exploit the browser is considered more efficient as the attacker can supply a browser fingerprinting method and integrate it with exploit code, all contained in Java Script and in response to the same web page request by the browser.
  • Session Credential Falsification through Prediction
    This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
  • Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)
    This attack targets the reuse of valid session ID to spoof the target system in order to gain privileges. The attacker tries to reuse a stolen session ID used previously during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. Another name for this type of attack is Session Replay.
  • Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding
    This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An attacker would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the attacker many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other.
Access
VectorComplexityAuthentication
NETWORK LOW NONE
Impact
ConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
PARTIAL NONE NONE
nessus via4
NASL family Ubuntu Local Security Checks
NASL id UBUNTU_USN-2920-1.NASL
description It was discovered that the ContainerNode::parserRemoveChild function in Blink mishandled widget updates in some circumstances. If a user were tricked in to opening a specially crafted website, an attacker could potentially exploit this to bypass same-origin restrictions. (CVE-2016-1630) It was discovered that the PPB_Flash_MessageLoop_Impl::InternalRun function in Chromium mishandled nested message loops. If a user were tricked in to opening a specially crafted website, an attacker could potentially exploit this to bypass same-origin restrictions. (CVE-2016-1631) Multiple use-after-frees were discovered in Blink. If a user were tricked in to opening a specially crafted website, an attacker could potentially exploit these to cause a denial of service via renderer crash or execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the sandboxed render process. (CVE-2016-1633, CVE-2016-1634, CVE-2016-1644) It was discovered that the PendingScript::notifyFinished function in Blink relied on memory-cache information about integrity-check occurrences instead of integrity-check successes. If a user were tricked in to opening a specially crafted website, an attacker could potentially exploit this to bypass Subresource Integrity (SRI) protections. (CVE-2016-1636) It was discovered that the SkATan2_255 function in Skia mishandled arctangent calculations. If a user were tricked in to opening a specially crafted website, an attacker could potentially exploit this to obtain sensitive information. (CVE-2016-1637) A use-after-free was discovered in Chromium. If a user were tricked in to opening a specially crafted website, an attacker could potentially exploit this to cause a denial of service via application crash, or execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the user invoking the program. (CVE-2016-1641) Multiple security issues were discovered in Chromium. If a user were tricked in to opening a specially crafted website, an attacker could potentially exploit these to read uninitialized memory, cause a denial of service via application crash or execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the user invoking the program. (CVE-2016-1642) A type-confusion bug was discovered in Blink. If a user were tricked in to opening a specially crafted website, an attacker could potentially exploit this to cause a denial of service via renderer crash or execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the sandboxed render process. (CVE-2016-1643) Multiple security issues were discovered in V8. If a user were tricked in to opening a specially crafted website, an attacker could potentially exploit these to read uninitialized memory, cause a denial of service via renderer crash or execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the sandboxed render process. (CVE-2016-2843) An invalid cast was discovered in Blink. If a user were tricked in to opening a specially crafted website, an attacker could potentially exploit this to cause a denial of service via renderer crash or execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the sandboxed render process. (CVE-2016-2844) It was discovered that the Content Security Policy (CSP) implementation in Blink did not ignore a URL's path component in the case of a ServiceWorker fetch. If a user were tricked in to opening a specially crafted website, an attacker could potentially exploit this to obtain sensitive information. (CVE-2016-2845). Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the Ubuntu security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
last seen 2019-02-21
modified 2018-12-01
plugin id 89865
published 2016-03-11
reporter Tenable
source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=89865
title Ubuntu 14.04 LTS / 15.10 : oxide-qt vulnerabilities (USN-2920-1)
redhat via4
advisories
bugzilla
id 1314227
title CVE-2016-1642 chromium-browser: various fixes from internal audits
oval
AND
  • comment chromium-browser is earlier than 0:49.0.2623.75-1.el6
    oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20160359005
  • comment chromium-browser is signed with Red Hat redhatrelease2 key
    oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20141626006
  • OR
    • comment Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Client is installed
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20100842001
    • comment Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Server is installed
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20100842002
    • comment Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Workstation is installed
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20100842003
    • comment Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 ComputeNode is installed
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20100842004
rhsa
id RHSA-2016:0359
released 2016-03-07
severity Important
title RHSA-2016:0359: chromium-browser security update (Important)
rpms chromium-browser-0:49.0.2623.75-1.el6
refmap via4
bid 84168
confirm
misc http://homakov.blogspot.com/2014/01/using-content-security-policy-for-evil.html
sectrack 1035185
ubuntu USN-2920-1
Last major update 02-12-2016 - 22:26
Published 05-03-2016 - 21:59
Back to Top