CVE-2026-11246
Google Chrome ≤ 149.0.7827.53
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-11246 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Google Chrome. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked at the 10th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-34707
Vulnerability Data
Insufficient validation of untrusted input in IndexedDB in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to bypass same origin policy via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
SOP bypass after renderer compromise directly enables browser session hijacking to steal cross-origin cookies/tokens.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of untrusted input, which is the root cause (CWE-20) that allowed the IndexedDB SOP bypass.
Enforces information flow rules such as same-origin policy between renderer processes and storage APIs like IndexedDB.
Implements access enforcement decisions that should have prevented the compromised renderer from violating origin boundaries.
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 and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.