Show filters
49 Total Results
Displaying 41-49 of 49
Sort by:
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2009-2352

Disclosure Date: July 07, 2009 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Google Chrome 1.0.154.48 and earlier does not block javascript: URIs in Refresh headers in HTTP responses, which allows remote attackers to conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via vectors related to (1) injecting a Refresh header or (2) specifying the content of a Refresh header, a related issue to CVE-2009-1312. NOTE: it was later reported that 2.0.172.28, 2.0.172.37, and 3.0.193.2 Beta are also affected.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2009-2121

Disclosure Date: June 23, 2009 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Buffer overflow in the browser kernel in Google Chrome before 2.0.172.33 allows remote HTTP servers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted response.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2009-2060

Disclosure Date: June 15, 2009 (last updated October 04, 2023)
src/net/http/http_transaction_winhttp.cc in Google Chrome before 1.0.154.53 uses the HTTP Host header to determine the context of a document provided in a (1) 4xx or (2) 5xx CONNECT response from a proxy server, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary web script by modifying this CONNECT response, aka an "SSL tampering" attack.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2009-2071

Disclosure Date: June 15, 2009 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Google Chrome before 1.0.154.53 displays a cached certificate for a (1) 4xx or (2) 5xx CONNECT response page returned by a proxy server, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof an arbitrary https site by letting a browser obtain a valid certificate from this site during one request, and then sending the browser a crafted 502 response page upon a subsequent request.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2009-1442

Disclosure Date: May 07, 2009 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Multiple integer overflows in Skia, as used in Google Chrome 1.x before 1.0.154.64 and 2.x, and possibly Android, might allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code in the renderer process via a crafted (1) image or (2) canvas.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2009-1441

Disclosure Date: May 07, 2009 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Heap-based buffer overflow in the ParamTraits<SkBitmap>::Read function in Google Chrome before 1.0.154.64 allows attackers to leverage renderer access to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via vectors related to a large bitmap that arrives over the IPC channel.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2009-1413

Disclosure Date: April 24, 2009 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Google Chrome 1.0.x does not cancel timeouts upon a page transition, which makes it easier for attackers to conduct Universal XSS attacks by calling setTimeout to trigger future execution of JavaScript code, and then modifying document.location to arrange for JavaScript execution in the context of an arbitrary web site. NOTE: this can be leveraged for a remote attack by exploiting a chromehtml: argument-injection vulnerability.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2009-1412

Disclosure Date: April 24, 2009 (last updated October 04, 2023)
Argument injection vulnerability in the chromehtml: protocol handler in Google Chrome before 1.0.154.59, when invoked by Internet Explorer, allows remote attackers to determine the existence of files, and open tabs for URLs that do not satisfy the IsWebSafeScheme restriction, via a web page that sets document.location to a chromehtml: value, as demonstrated by use of a (1) javascript: or (2) data: URL. NOTE: this can be leveraged for Universal XSS by exploiting certain behavior involving persistence across page transitions.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2009-0374

Disclosure Date: January 30, 2009 (last updated November 08, 2023)
Google Chrome 1.0.154.43 allows remote attackers to trick a user into visiting an arbitrary URL via an onclick action that moves a crafted element to the current mouse position, related to a "Clickjacking" vulnerability. NOTE: a third party disputes the relevance of this issue, stating that "every sufficiently featured browser is and likely will remain susceptible to the behavior known as clickjacking," and adding that the exploit code "is not a valid demonstration of the issue.
0