Security Resilience

CVE-2026-9898

Google Chrome ≤ 148.0.7778.216

Published
28 May 2026
Modified
21 July 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 8.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0032 24th percentile
Risk Priority 58 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-2026-9898 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Google Chrome. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).

Operationally, ranked at the 24th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) 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 GPU in Google Chrome on Android prior to 148.0.7778.216 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to potentially perform a sandbox escape via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-13924Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-14428Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-13863Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-87600Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-17736Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-13995Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-17651Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-17741Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-11297Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-11119Same product: Google Android

Affected Assets

google
chrome
≤ 148.0.7778.216

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.

SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.

Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.

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.

blocks

A.8.25 mandates security requirements, secure coding guidelines, checkpoints, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a slice of input validation defects but leaves the majority (incomplete enforcement, second-order inputs, parser differentials, post-validation canonicalization) unaddressed as in the SA-3 and A.8.28 anchors.

blocks

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.

blocks

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.

finds

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.

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-20, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.

References