Record summary

CVE-2023-7024 has a selected CVSS score of 8.8 (high); EIP currently links 1 repository PoC. CISA lists CVE-2023-7024 in KEV.

Description

Heap buffer overflow in WebRTC in Google Chrome prior to 120.0.6099.129 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description source: CVE List

Exploitation context

Known exploitation

CISA KEV
Listed · Jan 2, 2024 · CISA
VulnCheck KEV
Listed · Dec 19, 2023 · VulnCheck
Reported exploitation
Observed · VulnCheck

Available material

Repository PoCs
1

CISA SSVC decision

ExploitationActive
AutomatableNo
Technical impactTotal

CISA Coordinator · SSVC 2.0.3 · Evaluated Dec 23, 2023 · Source: CVE List

Affected products and versions

2
ProductSourceVersion rangeStatus
CVE List120.0.6099.129 to < 120.0.6099.129affected
CISAVersion data not supplied

Proofs of concept

1

Repository PoCs

GitHubaka76bm/google-chrome-emergency-updateRepository PoCby aka76bmStars: 1Scanner10 files

7.3 KiB

GitHub

PoC details
Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The repository provides scripts to detect the installed version of Google Chrome and compare it against a known secure version (CVE-2023-7024), and to trigger an update. It does not contain code to exploit the vulnerability.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The reviewed text files consist of a README, a version-check script, and two update scripts. All scripts perform only the documented Chrome version-checking or update-triggering actions using standard system commands. No obfuscation, concealed payloads, network calls to unrelated hosts, credential harvesting, persistence mechanisms, or other backdoor behavior is present in the supplied evidence.

ClassificationScanner
Model confidence95%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPowerShellBash
Target softwareGoogle Chrome
Attack typesheap buffer overflow
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The artifact contains scripts that detect the Chrome version and compare it to a secure baseline, and scripts that trigger an update. This is scanner behavior (detection and reporting) and update functionality, not exploitation of the heap buffer overflow.

detection-scripts/check-chrome-version.ps1:4-17update-scripts/update-chrome-linux.sh:8-24update-scripts/update-chrome-windows.ps1:28-34

Requirements

  • Google Chrome must be installed on the target system.detection-scripts/check-chrome-version.ps1:7-8

Observed behavior

  • Checks the installed Chrome version against a minimum secure version and reports if the system is vulnerable.detection-scripts/check-chrome-version.ps1:4-17
  • Attempts to update Google Chrome using the system's package manager or Google Update executable.update-scripts/update-chrome-linux.sh:8-24update-scripts/update-chrome-windows.ps1:28-34
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Script Action
Payload withheldThis is the standard documented method to invoke Chrome's own update mechanism; it does not download or execute an unrelated payload.update-scripts/update-chrome-windows.ps1:29-31
Script Action
Payload withheldThese are the standard package-manager commands for updating Chrome on Linux; no external URLs or custom binaries are introduced.update-scripts/update-chrome-linux.sh:11-20
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • Two selected text files (check-chrome-version.sh, update-chrome-macos.sh) are unavailable as text and were not analyzed.
  • The evidence does not include the /docs directory or security-advisory.md file, which may contain additional technical details.
  • Two selected text files (detection-scripts/check-chrome-version.sh and update-scripts/update-chrome-macos.sh) are unavailable as text and were not reviewed.
  • Six additional files in the repository (including security-advisory.md and files under /docs) were not included in the evidence packet and were not reviewed.
  • No binary files were identified, so binary analysis was not performed.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.

References

8