Severe Chrome Bug Allowed Arbitrary Code Execution (talosintel.com)
An anonymous reader quotes an article from Softpedia:
Google has recently patched a high severity security bug in the Chrome browser that allowed crooks to send malicious code to your browser and take over your entire system... Cisco's Aleksandar Nikolic was the researcher that discovered and reported the issue to Google, who even awarded him $3,000 for his efforts.
Chrome's built-in PDF reader PDFium used an OpenJPEG library to parse JPEG2000 files, and in Chrome it was lacking a crucial heap overflow check, according to a post on the Talos security blog. "By simply viewing a PDF document that includes an embedded jpeg2000 image, the attacker can achieve arbitrary code execution on the victim's system."
Chrome's built-in PDF reader PDFium used an OpenJPEG library to parse JPEG2000 files, and in Chrome it was lacking a crucial heap overflow check, according to a post on the Talos security blog. "By simply viewing a PDF document that includes an embedded jpeg2000 image, the attacker can achieve arbitrary code execution on the victim's system."
While it's good that Google rewards people who help make Chrome and the web more secure, $3,000 sounds not enough for such a critical bug.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
The real fix in my opinion is to get rid of the goddamn built in PDF viewers that now bloat browsers like Chrome and Firefox. Clearly they can be abused, like in this case. But in addition to that they just piss me off to no end. In the rare cases when I have to view a PDF, I typically want to use a real PDF viewer. I don't want to use the ones built into the browsers because they usually misrender the PDF in some way! Yeah, I probably could find some way to disable it, but I shouldn't have to. A web browser shouldn't come with a fucking PDF viewer built in!
It could execute code in the browser tab's process, but that's a long long way from taking over your system. Hence the relatively low bounty, compared to really serious exploits that can break out of the sandbox and bypass OS security.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I just checked and I am using IE 6 so I should be safe
http://saveie6.com/
Disregard that, I am an idiot. It does use an SUID sandbox. There are plans for it to be replaced by user namespaces sandbox, but as of now, it needs root.