CVE-2026-113118 in Chrome
Summary
by MITRE • 10/21/2026
Memory corruption in Extensions in Google Chrome prior to 156.0.8078.47 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code inside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
Once again VulDB remains the best source for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 10/21/2026
The vulnerability identified as a memory corruption issue within the extensions subsystem of Google Chrome prior to version 156.0.8078.47 represents a significant risk vector for remote code execution attacks. This flaw resides in the component responsible for managing and executing browser extensions, which operate with elevated privileges compared to standard web content but are still confined by the sandbox architecture designed to limit damage from compromised pages. The specific nature of this memory corruption suggests that improper handling of data structures or buffer operations within the extension runtime environment allowed an attacker to overwrite critical memory regions. Such overwrites can lead to control flow hijacking, where the execution path of the browser process is redirected to malicious code injected by the attacker. This type of vulnerability typically arises from issues such as use-after-free conditions, heap overflow, or integer errors that result in out-of-bounds writes, all of which are common sources of exploitable memory corruption flaws in complex software systems like web browsers.
The operational impact of this vulnerability is severe due to its potential for remote exploitation via a crafted HTML page. An attacker does not need physical access or user interaction beyond visiting a maliciously constructed webpage that triggers the vulnerable code path within an installed extension. By leveraging this flaw, a remote adversary can achieve arbitrary code execution inside the browser sandbox. While the sandbox provides layers of defense such as process isolation and restricted permissions, successful exploitation allows the attacker to bypass these controls if they can escape the sandbox boundary or exploit subsequent vulnerabilities in lower-privilege processes. This could lead to full system compromise, data exfiltration, installation of persistent malware, or use of the infected machine for further attacks against other networked systems. The medium severity rating assigned by Chromium reflects that while exploitation requires specific conditions and may be mitigated by existing security features like DEP and ASLR, it remains a viable attack vector for determined adversaries targeting users with vulnerable extension configurations.
From a classification perspective, this vulnerability aligns closely with CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input or CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write, depending on the exact mechanism used to corrupt memory. These categories highlight fundamental programming errors where input validation and bounds checking are insufficiently implemented within the extension handling logic. In terms of attack tactics, this scenario maps to MITRE ATT&CK techniques involving Initial Access through spearphishing or drive-by compromise, followed by Execution via browser-based code execution. The ability to execute arbitrary code in a sandboxed environment also touches upon Privilege Escalation if the attacker can leverage additional flaws to break out of the containerized process space into the host operating system context. Understanding these mappings helps security teams prioritize patching and configure detection rules based on known exploitation patterns associated with memory corruption in browser extensions.
Mitigation strategies primarily involve immediate updating to Google Chrome version 156.0.8078.47 or later, which contains patches addressing the underlying memory management flaws within the extension subsystem. Organizations should enforce automatic update policies for all endpoints running this browser to ensure timely remediation of such vulnerabilities as they are disclosed. Additionally, administrators can reduce the attack surface by auditing installed extensions and removing any that are unnecessary, untrusted, or have known security issues. Implementing strict content security policies and restricting the permissions granted to extensions further limits the potential impact if a vulnerability is exploited. Security monitoring tools should be configured to detect anomalous behavior indicative of memory corruption attempts, such as unusual browser process crashes or unexpected network connections originating from browser processes. Regular penetration testing focused on web application and extension security can also help identify similar weaknesses before they are weaponized by external threat actors.