ChromeWeb browser · Google
CVE-2013-2921
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedDouble free vulnerability in the ResourceFetcher::didLoadResource function in core/fetch/ResourceFetcher.cpp in the resource loader in Blink, as used in Google Chrome before 30.0.1599.66, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service or possibly have unspecified other impact by triggering certain callback processing during the reporting of a resource entry.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceA double free vulnerability exists in the ResourceFetcher::didLoadResource function in Blink's resource loader (core/fetch/ResourceFetcher.cpp). During callback processing triggered when reporting a resource entry, the same memory pointer is freed twice, leading to heap corruption, potential denial of service, or possibly arbitrary code execution.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
ChromeWeb browser
<= 30.0.1599.65= 30.0.1599.0= 30.0.1599.1= 30.0.1599.2= 30.0.1599.4= 30.0.1599.5= 30.0.1599.6= 30.0.1599.7= 30.0.1599.8= 30.0.1599.9= 30.0.1599.10= 30.0.1599.11CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Find installed Chrome versionOpen Chrome and navigate to chrome://version, or go to Menu > Help > About Google Chrome. Note the version number displayed (e.g., 30.0.1599.x).Affected if The version shown is 30.0.1599.65 or lower, or specifically matches 30.0.1599.0 through 30.0.1599.11
-
Confirm version formatIdentify the full version string including the build number (the four-digit suffix after the minor version, such as 30.0.1599.65).Affected if The build number portion (1599.x) falls at or below 65, which places it within the affected 30.0.1599.x range.
-
Identify Chrome channel (optional)In chrome://version, check the 'Profile Path' line or look for update preferences. Stable channel versions below 30.0.1599.66 are affected; Beta/Dev channels at 30.x may also be affected if below the patched version.Affected if Running a Chrome version at 30.x branch that is 30.0.1599.66 or lower.
You are affected if your installed Google Chrome version is 30.0.1599.65 or any 30.0.1599.x version at or below that build, as this is the vulnerable version range where the double-free in ResourceFetcher::didLoadResource exists.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade Google Chrome to version 30.0.1599.66 or later. For custom Blink-based products, apply the corresponding patch that corrects the double-free condition in the resource entry callback handling logic.
Fix this in Chrome
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-2921 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2013-2921 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data