CVE-2015-1291
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 · uneditedThe ContainerNode::parserRemoveChild function in core/dom/ContainerNode.cpp in Blink, as used in Google Chrome before 45.0.2454.85, does not check whether a node is expected, which allows remote attackers to bypass the Same Origin Policy or cause a denial of service (DOM tree corruption) via a web site with crafted JavaScript code and IFRAME elements.
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 confidenceThe ContainerNode::parserRemoveChild function in Blink's DOM implementation fails to validate whether a node being removed is an 'expected' node during parsing. This allows crafted JavaScript with IFRAME elements to manipulate the DOM in ways that violate the Same Origin Policy (enabling potential cross-origin data access) or corrupt the DOM tree, causing denial of service.
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<= 44.0.2403CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/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.
-
Check Google Chrome versionOpen Chrome, click the three-dot menu in the top-right, select 'Help', then 'About Google Chrome'. The version number is displayed on that page.Affected if The displayed version is 44.0.2403 or lower
-
Confirm Chrome channel (optional)In the About Chrome page, look for the channel indicator (Stable, Beta, Dev, Canary) next to the version number.Affected if Any channel showing an affected version, though Stable is the primary affected channel
-
Verify Blink-based browser variantThis vulnerability is in the Blink rendering engine. Confirm the affected browser is Google Chrome (or a Chromium-based browser using the same Blink version).Affected if Running Google Chrome or a Chromium-based browser with Blink version corresponding to Chrome 44.0.2403 or earlier
If Google Chrome version is 44.0.2403 or lower, the browser is vulnerable to Same Origin Policy bypass and DOM corruption via crafted JavaScript with IFRAME elements during parsing.
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 45.0.2454.85 or later. No server-side mitigations are available as this is a client-side browser vulnerability.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-1291 — 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-2015-1291 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