CVE-2025-1921
Google Chrome ≤ 134.0.6998.35
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-1921 is a medium-severity Exposure of Sensitive Information Through Metadata (CWE-1230) vulnerability in Google Chrome. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Data from Local System (T1005); ranked at the 24th 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 AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and AC-16 (Security and Privacy Attributes) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-6097
Vulnerability Data
Inappropriate implementation in Media Stream in Google Chrome prior to 134.0.6998.35 allowed a remote attacker to obtain information about a peripheral via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
V3.4.2V12.1.5V13.3.2V14.2.4
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can be configured to treat metadata as protected information and block its unauthorized release.
Associating and enforcing security/privacy attributes on objects directly governs what metadata may be exposed.
Requiring security attributes to accompany transmitted data prevents sensitive values from leaking through metadata channels.
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.
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.
Classification helps identify metadata that may need protection, but does not directly limit its exposure.
Labelling can flag sensitive metadata, yet does not enforce technical controls to prevent its disclosure.
Transfer policies can require stripping or protecting metadata, but coverage is indirect.
Access-control rules can be extended to metadata objects, though the control is not metadata-specific.
Data-masking techniques can obscure sensitive metadata values, providing partial mitigation.
DLP solutions can detect and block metadata leakage, yet are not designed solely for this weakness.