Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-7949 is a low-severity Out-of-bounds Read (CWE-125) vulnerability in Google Chrome. Its CVSS base score is 3.1 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Credentials from Web Browsers (T1555.003); ranked at the 8th 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 SC-39 (Process Isolation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-28001
Vulnerability Data
Out of bounds read in Skia in Google Chrome prior to 148.0.7778.96 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to leak cross-origin data via a crafted Chrome Extension. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
OOB read enables cross-origin data leakage (incl. cookies/credentials) after renderer compromise via crafted extension.
Likely ATT&CK TechniquesAI
Techniques this vulnerability likely enables, inferred from its description, weakness type, and attributed-actor tradecraft. Confidence is per-technique.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces cross-origin information flow policies, blocking the data leakage that the OOB read enables after renderer compromise.
Process isolation confines the compromised renderer, limiting the attacker's ability to exploit Skia flaws for cross-origin reads.
Memory protection mechanisms reduce the feasibility and impact of out-of-bounds reads in libraries such as Skia.
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-development practices such as bounds checking and memory-safe languages directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
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 and acceptance includes fuzzing and static analysis that detect out-of-bounds read defects before release.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Application security requirements include explicit bounds and memory-safety specifications that mitigate buffer over-reads.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require memory-safe design patterns and runtime protections against out-of-bounds access.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds-checked reads, eliminating CWE-125.