CVE-2026-95369
Google Chrome ≤ 154.0.8037.57
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-95369 is a high-severity Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow (CWE-841) vulnerability in Google Chrome. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 34th 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 IA-11 (Re-authentication) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-89256
Vulnerability Data
Inappropriate implementation in XML in Google Chrome prior to 154.0.8037.57 allowed a remote attacker to potentially execute arbitrary code inside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Access enforcement can require each successive workflow step to present the proper authorization context before proceeding.
Re-authentication requirements can be placed at critical workflow steps to ensure the actor has performed prior behaviors.
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.
Secure development lifecycle requires explicit workflow enforcement in multi-step processes.
A.8.26 only requires that workflow-enforcement requirements be identified during requirements gathering; it performs no enforcement itself and leaves the weakness fully exploitable
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (least privilege, default deny, fail securely, distrust external input, defense-in-depth, assume-breach, zero-trust verification) plus design reviews that can catch and block many workflow-sequence enforcement gaps before they ship, but leaves a bounded remainder (e.g. complex multi-step business-process flows whose required ordering is not captured by any listed principle or standard attack-pattern review).
Secure coding practices can prevent missing workflow checks but do not define the control itself.
Security testing can detect workflow bypasses but does not enforce them at runtime.
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-841, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.