VulnerabilityPublished 14 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-11920: Google Chrome · Inappropriate Implementation

Affects Google ChromeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium : upgrade to 130.0.6723.92 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 130.0.6723.92

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

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

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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 Nov 2025
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 26 Oct 2026.

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 google/chrome to 130.0.6723.92.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Googlegoogle/chrome`pkg:deb/google/chrome`Other threats	Affected <130.0.6723.92	Fixed in 130.0.6723.92

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should implement a multi-layered mitigation strategy beyond generic patching advice: 1) Immediately verify and update all Google Chrome installations on Mac devices to version 130.0.6723.92 or later once the patch is officially released. 2) Employ endpoint management solutions to enforce browser update policies and prevent use of outdated versions. 3) Use web filtering and URL reputation services to block access to known malicious or suspicious websites that could host crafted HTML exploits. 4) Educate users about the risks of interacting with untrusted web content and phishing attempts, emphasizing cautious browsing behavior. 5) Monitor browser crash logs and endpoint telemetry for unusual patterns that may indicate exploitation attempts. 6) Consider deploying application sandboxing or isolation techniques for browsers to limit the impact of potential memory corruption. 7) Coordinate with IT security teams to integrate vulnerability scanning and asset inventory focusing on Mac devices and Chrome versions. 8) Stay informed via official Google security advisories and threat intelligence feeds for updates on exploit developments or patches. These targeted actions will reduce exposure and improve resilience against this specific vulnerability.

Description

Inappropriate implementation in Dawn in Google Chrome on Mac prior to 130.0.6723.92 allowed a remote attacker to perform out of bounds memory access via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2024-11920 is the potential disruption of services due to browser crashes or instability on Mac devices running affected Chrome versions. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise data confidentiality or integrity, denial of service conditions could affect user productivity and availability of web-based applications. Organizations with a significant Mac user base, especially in sectors relying heavily on web applications (e.g., finance, media, technology), may experience operational interruptions. Additionally, although no known exploits exist currently, the memory corruption nature of the flaw could be leveraged in future sophisticated attacks, increasing risk over time. The vulnerability also poses a reputational risk if exploited in targeted attacks against European entities. Given the remote attack vector and lack of required privileges, the threat surface is broad, emphasizing the importance of proactive mitigation. The impact is somewhat mitigated by the requirement for user interaction, but phishing or malicious web content campaigns could facilitate exploitation.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Overread Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Nov 2025, 04:51 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125, CWE-787

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats