CVE-2024-6778
Race Condition in Google Chrome ≤ 126.0.6478.182
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-6778 is a high-severity Race Condition (CWE-362) vulnerability in Google Chrome. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 47% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2024-6778 is a race condition vulnerability in DevTools within Google Chrome versions prior to 126.0.6478.182. The flaw, tracked under CWE-362 and CWE-366, resides in the handling of extension interactions with privileged pages and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 7.5.
An attacker who persuades a user to install a maliciously crafted Chrome extension can exploit the race to inject arbitrary scripts or HTML into a privileged page. Successful exploitation grants the attacker high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability without requiring elevated privileges beyond the extension installation step.
Chrome stable channel updates released on 16 July 2024 address the issue by advancing the browser to version 126.0.6478.182, as noted in the corresponding Chromium release notes and issue tracker entries. The EPSS score remains flat at 0.1526 with no reported real-world exploitation.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-47810
Vulnerability Data
Race in DevTools in Google Chrome prior to 126.0.6478.182 allowed an attacker who convinced a user to install a malicious extension to inject scripts or HTML into a privileged page via a crafted Chrome Extension. (Chromium security severity: High)
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V10.4.2V10.4.5V15.1.3V15.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can include concurrency and stress testing that finds race conditions after they have been coded.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate use of safe concurrency patterns that avoid introducing races.
Security engineering principles include requirements for synchronization primitives and thread-safe design that stop race conditions from being introduced.
Maintaining separate execution domains for each process structurally eliminates unintended concurrent access to the same shared resources.
Preventing unintended information transfer through shared system resources directly addresses the improper concurrent modification that defines a race condition.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require proper synchronization primitives and concurrency testing that prevent race conditions.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect race conditions, but does not prevent them at design or coding time.
Secure SDLC mandates concurrency controls and synchronization primitives that directly prevent race conditions.
Application security requirements can specify thread-safety and locking rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture principles require proper synchronization and resource isolation, addressing the root cause of CWE-362.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe concurrent access patterns and mandate atomic operations or locks.
Change management reduces introduction of concurrency bugs during updates, yet does not address the weakness itself.