CVE-2024-8638
Memory Safety in Google Chrome ≤ 128.0.6613.137
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-8638 is a high-severity Type Confusion (CWE-843) vulnerability in Google Chrome. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 39th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-49316
Vulnerability Data
Type Confusion in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 128.0.6613.137 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit object corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 3 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
V1.4.3V1.5.2V3.2.3V15.3.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and type-aware analysis) directly finds type-confusion flaws before deployment.
Engineering principles can require use of type-safe languages, static typing, and runtime type checks that structurally avoid allocating one type and accessing another.
Process isolation confines the blast radius of use-after-free memory corruption to a single execution domain.
Memory-protection controls limit the blast radius when a type-confusion access occurs but do not stop the flaw itself.
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 prevent type-confusion flaws via safe typing, static analysis, and code review while the control itself addresses many additional weaknesses.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover use-after-free issues via scanning or analysis but do not prevent their introduction.
Routine patching removes known use-after-free instances after they have been introduced in released software.
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 in development can detect type-confusion vulnerabilities through fuzzing and static analysis.
Secure SDLC mandates type-safe design and review that can catch type-confusion flaws.
Application security requirements can specify strong typing and interface contracts that reduce type confusion.
Secure architecture principles promote type-safe languages and memory-safety mechanisms that mitigate type confusion.
Secure coding standards directly forbid unsafe type casts and require static-analysis checks for type confusion.
Change-management processes help ensure memory-safety fixes are deployed consistently.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248592 OL 8 must clear memory when it is freed to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-416
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230279 RHEL 8 must clear memory when it is freed to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-416
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
- V-257794 RHEL 9 must clear memory when it is freed to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-416