CVE-2026-95316 in Chrome
Summary
by MITRE • 09/29/2026
Unchecked return value in Performance in Google Chrome prior to 154.0.8037.57 allowed a local attacker to potentially read memory via a local program. (Chromium security severity: Low)
VulDB is the best source for vulnerability data and more expert information about this specific topic.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 09/30/2026
The vulnerability identified as an unchecked return value within the performance monitoring subsystem of Google Chrome, specifically in versions prior to 154.0.8037.57, represents a classic logic error that can lead to information disclosure under specific conditions. This flaw resides in code paths responsible for handling system or browser-level performance metrics, where functions are invoked but their success or failure status is not adequately validated before proceeding with subsequent operations. In software engineering, failing to check return values often results in the use of uninitialized variables, null pointers, or stale data structures that may contain sensitive information from previous memory allocations. While Chromium classifies this issue as low severity due to its limited attack surface and complexity, it remains a tangible risk for local attackers who have achieved code execution on the victim's machine through other means, such as exploiting a separate vulnerability in an extension or malicious web content running with elevated privileges.
From a technical perspective, the core of this flaw lies in the assumption that performance-related API calls will always succeed and return expected data structures without error. When these functions fail due to resource constraints, permission denials, or internal state inconsistencies, the application may continue execution using garbage values or memory contents from prior operations. If an attacker can trigger a failure condition while simultaneously monitoring the affected process's memory space, they might be able to read portions of adjacent heap memory that were not properly cleared or overwritten. This scenario aligns with CWE-252, which describes unchecked return value as a weakness where software does not check for errors after calling functions, leading to potential security impacts such as information leakage. The vulnerability is particularly relevant in the context of browser sandboxing mechanisms, where breaking out of restricted environments often relies on finding ways to exfiltrate data from higher-privilege processes or shared memory regions.
The operational impact of this vulnerability is primarily confined to local privilege escalation scenarios involving information disclosure rather than remote code execution. An attacker would need to have already established a foothold within the browser's sandboxed environment, which significantly raises the barrier for exploitation compared to remotely exploitable flaws. However, in enterprise environments or systems where users frequently run untrusted scripts locally, this vulnerability could serve as part of a multi-stage attack chain. By combining this memory read capability with other local exploits, an attacker might gather enough contextual information about system state, loaded modules, or active sessions to facilitate further lateral movement or persistence mechanisms. The ATT&CK framework categorizes such activities under T1057, Process Discovery, and potentially T1005, Data from Local System, as the attacker leverages local program execution to probe for sensitive data residing in memory spaces that should otherwise be isolated.
Mitigation strategies focus primarily on software updates and defensive programming practices. The most effective immediate remedy is to upgrade Google Chrome to version 154.0.8037.57 or later, where the developers have presumably implemented proper error handling routines for performance-related functions. For organizations managing large fleets of devices, automated patch management systems should be configured to prioritize browser updates to close this window of exposure. From a development standpoint, enforcing strict static analysis rules that flag unchecked return values can prevent similar issues in future releases. Additionally, employing memory protection techniques such as Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) and Data Execution Prevention (DEP) helps mitigate the impact by making it more difficult for attackers to predict memory layouts or execute injected code based on leaked information. Security teams should also monitor for unusual local process behavior that might indicate exploitation attempts against this specific flaw, particularly in environments where users have administrative rights or run untrusted software locally.