CVE-2024-0333VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jan 2024Updated 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2024-0333: Google Chrome · Insufficient data validation

Affects Google ChromeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 120.0.6099.216 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 120.0.6099.216

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Jan 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade ubuntu/google-chrome-stable and fedora/google-chrome to 120.0.6099.216.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Ubuntuubuntu/google-chrome-stable`pkg:deb/ubuntu/google-chrome-stable`Other threats	Affected <120.0.6099.216	Fixed in 120.0.6099.216
Fedorafedora/google-chrome`pkg:rpm/fedora/google-chrome`Other threats	Affected <120.0.6099.216	Fixed in 120.0.6099.216

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability effectively, European organizations should: 1) Ensure all Chrome installations are updated promptly to version 120.0.6099.216 or later, deploying automated patch management where possible. 2) Implement network security measures such as enforcing HTTPS with HSTS, using DNS over HTTPS (DoH), and deploying network intrusion detection/prevention systems to detect anomalous traffic indicative of MitM attacks. 3) Restrict extension installation policies via enterprise management tools (e.g., Chrome Enterprise policies) to allow only approved extensions, preventing unauthorized installations regardless of exploitation attempts. 4) Educate users to avoid clicking on suspicious links or visiting untrusted websites, reducing the risk of user interaction-based exploitation. 5) Employ network segmentation and VPNs to limit exposure to privileged network positions, especially for remote or mobile users. 6) Monitor browser extension inventories and behaviors for anomalies that could indicate compromise. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on layered defenses addressing both the vulnerability and its exploitation vectors.

Description

Insufficient data validation in Extensions in Google Chrome prior to 120.0.6099.216 allowed an attacker in a privileged network position to install a malicious extension via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a tangible risk, especially in sectors where sensitive data is accessed via web browsers, such as finance, healthcare, and government. An attacker exploiting this flaw could install extensions that exfiltrate credentials, session cookies, or confidential documents, leading to data breaches and compliance violations under regulations like GDPR. The requirement for a privileged network position means that organizations with less secure or segmented networks, or those relying on public or shared networks, are more vulnerable. Additionally, the need for user interaction (visiting a malicious page) means that phishing campaigns could be used to trigger exploitation. The integrity compromise of browser extensions can facilitate persistent footholds and lateral movement within corporate networks. Given the widespread use of Google Chrome across European enterprises and public institutions, the potential for targeted attacks exploiting this vulnerability is significant, particularly in environments where network security controls are insufficient to detect or prevent MitM attacks.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Jul 2025, 08:25 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats