Security Resilience

CVE-2026-17677

Google Chrome ≤ 151.0.7922.72

Published
30 July 2026
Modified
03 August 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 8.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0048 40th percentile
Risk Priority 64 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2026-17677 is a high-severity Protection Mechanism Failure (CWE-693) vulnerability in Google Chrome. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).

Operationally, ranked at the 40th 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-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Inappropriate implementation in ANGLE in Google Chrome on Android prior to 151.0.7922.72 allowed a remote attacker to potentially perform a sandbox escape via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-13910Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-8572Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-17676Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-8571Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-7913Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-12438Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-11263Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-11247Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-8583Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-9889Same product: Google Android

Affected Assets

google
chrome
≤ 151.0.7922.72

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

AC-3 directly requires enforcement of access authorizations via the protection mechanism itself.

AC-4 mandates use of information flow enforcement mechanisms to control data movement.

SC-2 requires separation of user and system functionality as a protection mechanism.

SC-28 requires protection mechanisms for information at rest.

SC-3 requires isolation of security functions from non-security functions.

SC-7 requires boundary protection mechanisms to monitor and control external communications.

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.

finds

Systematic verification that security mechanisms operate according to defined standards reduces the likelihood that protection mechanisms are bypassed or disabled.

removes

A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including protection mechanisms) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself mandate, implement, or enforce the mechanisms that would remove CWE-693 instances from the product.

removes

A.8.28 mandates secure coding practices, principles, standards, design, peer review, defect removal, prohibition of insecure techniques (e.g. hard-coded passwords), and evaluation of common errors before deployment, which directly removes many instances of missing or incorrectly used protection mechanisms from first-party code; the bounded remainder is third-party components and post-deployment issues handled by other clauses (8.8, 8.29).

Hardening callouts derived

DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.

  • No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-693, a pillar-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-654, CWE-757.

References