Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-8010

Google Chrome ≤ 148.0.7778.96

Published
06 May 2026
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 6.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
EPSS Score 0.0014 3th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-8010 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Google Chrome. Its CVSS base score is 6.3 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked at the 3th 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 SC-39 (Process Isolation) 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

Vulnerability Data

Insufficient validation of untrusted input in SiteIsolation in Google Chrome prior to 148.0.7778.96 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to bypass site isolation via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI

T1185 Browser Session Hijacking Collection
Adversaries may take advantage of security vulnerabilities and inherent functionality in browser software to change content, modify user-behaviors, and intercept information as part of various browser session hijacking techniques.
Why these techniques?

Site isolation bypass after renderer compromise directly enables cross-origin data/session access consistent with browser session hijacking.

Confidence: MEDIUM · MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v19.0

Likely ATT&CK TechniquesAI

Techniques this vulnerability likely enables, inferred from its description, weakness type, and attributed-actor tradecraft. Confidence is per-technique.

T1497 Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion Stealthconfidence: MEDIUM
Bypassing site isolation directly evades Chrome's process-level sandboxing for web origins.
inferred from description + CWE · MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v19.0

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-11246Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2026-9979Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2026-13024Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2026-8528Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2026-11223Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2026-12025Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2026-11675Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2026-12017Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2026-11255Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2026-11008Same product: Apple Macos

Affected Assets

google
chrome
≤ 148.0.7778.96

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • SI-10 Information Input Validation
  • SC-39 Process Isolation
  • AC-3 Access Enforcement
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

prevent

Directly requires validation of untrusted input, addressing the CWE-20 flaw that permitted crafted HTML to bypass SiteIsolation checks.

prevent

Mandates separate execution domains for processes, directly supporting SiteIsolation to contain a compromised renderer and block cross-site bypasses.

prevent

Enforces access-control decisions between isolated origins, limiting the impact of any validation failure that would otherwise allow renderer-to-site access violations.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

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.

detects

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.

prevents

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.

prevents

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.

prevents

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.

prevents

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.

none

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.

References