Revision of Case Study on CVE-2025-12036 – Remote Code Execution in Google Chrome’s V8 JavaScript Engine

[rishiVols]

Revision

[continue]

Learn more

---

All Green is an AI agent that automatically:

✅ Addresses code review comments

✅ Fixes failing CI checks

✅ Resolves merge conflicts

[stevechristeycoley]

This is a brief checklist for review of this writeup for possible
inclusion in the Secure Coding Case Studies work.

Review Information

Metadata	Info
Author	Rishitha Voleti - George Mason University
Reviewer	Steve Christey Coley
Start Date	2025-12-16 21:06:00
End Date	2025-12-15 23:22:00
PR	#46
PR Access Date	2025-12-14 18:52:00
Issue	#14
File(s)	V8_RishithaVoleti.md
Recommendation	Not recommended for MSCCS. Not recommended for CWE.

Review Summary

Total time of this review is uncertain because it was split into two
parts, so the "End Date" was left unfilled. [edit: oh, it was unfilled? then why did the End Date PRECEDE the Start Date? Somebody needs to update their program to perform temporal input validation.]

This vulnerability is very recent - from October 2025 - but most
root-cause technical details are not available. While this is a common
occurrence for many vulnerabilities in the early days/months after
disclosure - even for open source vendors like Google - it is not
always guaranteed that technical details will ever be released.

Phrases such as "crafted JavaScript code" are useful for vulnerability
management, and a common phrasing in vulnerability reports, but these
are insufficient details for weakness analysis. Similarly,
consequences such as "read sensitive information" are important for
vulnerability management, but many different weaknesses can lead to
this consequence. It is understandable why the writeup listed multiple
scenarios in which "maybe" [sic] the product was making certain
mistakes, or it "might have" fixed the issue in certain ways - but
this is a reflection of the reality at the time of the writeup and
this review: there are insufficient details, and we just don't know
what the root cause of the problem is.

It was originally unclear why this was flagged as CWE-358: Improperly
Implemented Security Check for Standard when the CVE desc says "Out of
bounds memory access" which could be OOB read, OOB write, etc., i.e.,
somewhere in CWE-119 or its children CWE-787/CWE-125 or their
descendants. But the writeup discusses how "security checks validate
data types, make sure memory accesses stay within safe boundaries..."
etc. - which was not the intention of CWE-358, but it's understandable
how that interpretation could happen. This is a
"usability"/"understandability" problem for CWE but is being noted
here.

Recommendation: insufficient public details at this time for both SCCS
and CWE.

Case Study Structure

• writeup follows "Case Study Structure" recommendations without significant errors

Case Study Selection

• CVE
  • CVE ID clearly identified
  • CVE ID follows correct ID syntax
  • CVE is sufficiently recent
  • issue has been fixed
• Detailed reference(s)
  • vulnerable source code available
  • fixed source code available
  • code is properly licensed to be made public
  • (preferred) articles about exploitation

Case Study Contents

Title

• not too vague
• not too technical
• typically follows: <Weakness/Exploit Type> In <Software Name>
• generally between 4 and 6 words
• all caps

Introduction

• typically one paragraph
• issue and consequences in first sentence or two
• weakness type, possibly including position in Top 25
• sentence introducing the software application
• scope of the case study

Software

• has Name
  • include vendor name if applicable
  • avoid version numbers (in this field)
• has Language
• has URL (typically on GitHub if open source)

Weakness

• cites appropriate CWE ID and name
• one to two paragraphs long
• does not discuss the actual vulnerable code
• does not refer to the real software

Vulnerability

• CVE ID listed at the beginning
• discuss what the affected software is used for
• Code walk-through
  • calls out specific lines with language like "On line 123 ..."
  • calls out specific variables/inputs
  • includes "vulnerable file:" label and filename
  • follows "fenced code block" formatting
  • only cites source code that is necessary to the weakness
  • uses "..." to skip multiple lines of irrelevant source code
  • avoids exploit details

Exploit

• explain how the vulnerability is/was exploited and the consequences
• lists relevant CAPEC ID (if available)
• typically one to three paragraphs in length; could be longer with complex exploits
• when available, shows how certain inputs drive the exploit and how it works through the code

Fix

• describes how the weakness was fixed
• focuses only on the changes related to the weakness
• code follows "fenced code block" formatting
• includes "fixed file:" label and filename
• uses ```diff construct to highlight the diff

Prevention

• provides enough detail for the reader to implement the suggestions
• includes relevant secure coding practices
• includes mechanisms of identification e.g. tools
• typically a few paragraphs long

Conclusion

• brief summary of the case study (1 to 2 paragraphs long)
• avoids any new information

References

• name/URL of software page
• name/URL of the CVE
• name/URL of the CWE(s)
• name/URL of the CAPEC(s)
• name/URL of vendor's vuln report
• (if possible) name/URL of the specific code commit with the fix
• name/URL of any article that helped inform the case study
• no unusual/unexpected claims, or backed up by references
• (if available) name/URL for any foundational tutorial or best practice guide
• avoids listing all possible references

Contributors

• credits significant contributors
• includes original creator and reviewer(s)

Images/Diagrams (Optional)

• helps the reader understand a complex topic
• typically 0 to 2 images; no fixed rule