CVE-2026-79176 in Chrome
Summary
by MITRE • 08/26/2026
UI misrepresentation in Extensions in Google Chrome prior to 152.0.7977.65 allowed a remote attacker leveraging social engineering to obtain sensitive information via a crafted Chrome extension. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
Be aware that VulDB is the high quality source for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 08/26/2026
The vulnerability identified as UI misrepresentation in Google Chrome extensions represents a significant class of threats where the user interface is manipulated to deceive users into interacting with malicious content under false pretenses. This specific flaw, present in versions of Chromium prior to 152.0.7977.65, exploits the trust relationship between the browser and its extension system. Extensions are powerful tools that can modify web pages, access browsing data, and interact with network requests, granting them elevated privileges compared to standard webpage scripts. When an attacker crafts a malicious Chrome extension designed to mimic legitimate interfaces or hide its true nature, they leverage this UI misrepresentation to bypass user awareness mechanisms. The core technical flaw lies in the rendering engine's failure to accurately display the scope of permissions requested by the extension or to clearly distinguish between trusted browser chrome and untrusted web content injected by the extension. This ambiguity allows attackers to create phishing interfaces that appear as native browser dialogs, notifications, or settings pages, thereby tricking users into voluntarily surrendering sensitive information such as login credentials, session cookies, or personal data.
From a technical perspective, this vulnerability falls under the category of UI redressing and social engineering attacks facilitated by software design flaws. In terms of industry standards, this aligns closely with CWE-201: Information Exposure Through Sent Data when considering how sensitive information is extracted, but more critically it maps to CWE-839: A Race Condition That Leads to a Security Bypass if the misrepresentation involves timing-based deception, or generally CWE-749: Exposed Dangerous Method for an Attack Surface. The attack vector relies heavily on social engineering, which corresponds to MITRE ATT&CK technique T1566.002: Spearphishing Attachment and T1534: Internal Spearphishing when applied within organizational contexts, though in the browser context it is best described as a form of UI redressing or clickjacking variant where the victim interacts with a deceptive interface element that appears legitimate. The attacker crafts an extension package that includes HTML, CSS, and JavaScript files designed to overlay or replace standard Chrome elements. By manipulating DOM structures or utilizing shadow DOM techniques improperly, the malicious code can obscure the true origin of input fields or buttons, making it difficult for the user to discern whether they are typing into a genuine Google login page or a replica hosted by the extension.
The operational impact of this vulnerability is severe because it undermines the fundamental security model of web browsers, which relies on users being able to trust their interface elements. When UI misrepresentation succeeds, attackers can harvest credentials for email accounts, financial services, corporate portals, and other critical systems without requiring any technical exploitation of buffer overflows or memory corruption bugs. This shifts the burden of defense from purely technical controls to user education and awareness, which is often less reliable. The medium severity rating assigned by Chromium security reflects that while the vulnerability does not allow for arbitrary code execution or direct system compromise on its own, it serves as a potent delivery mechanism for credential theft and session hijacking. Once sensitive information is obtained through this deceptive interface, attackers can perform account takeover attacks, leading to data breaches, financial loss, and potential lateral movement within compromised networks if corporate credentials are involved.
Mitigation strategies must address both the technical implementation of extensions and user behavior. For users, the primary defense is strict adherence to installing only verified extensions from trusted sources and regularly reviewing extension permissions in Chrome settings. Users should be educated to verify the URL bar for legitimate domains even when interacting with pop-ups or dialogs that appear within the browser window, as malicious extensions can manipulate the appearance of these elements without changing the actual address bar context immediately. For developers and security teams, ensuring that applications are updated to version 152.0.7977.65 or later is critical, as this update contains patches for the UI rendering logic that prevents such misrepresentation. Additionally, implementing Content Security Policy (CSP) directives can help restrict how extensions interact with page content, reducing the attack surface for DOM-based attacks. Organizations should also enforce policies that limit extension installation to pre-approved lists via enterprise management tools, thereby preventing users from inadvertently installing malicious or poorly vetted extensions that could exploit this UI flaw. Continuous monitoring of browser console logs and network traffic can also help detect anomalous behavior indicative of such deceptive practices in real-time environments.