← Back to Feed CACHED · 2026-05-17 09:42:19 · cache_key CVE-2025-29912
CVE-2026-11291 · CWE-346 · Disclosed 2026-06-05

Inappropriate implementation in Android Autofill in Google Chrome on Android prior to 149

ASSESSED — NOISGATE V0.5
Vendor
Reassessed
Verdict:
01 · The Real Story

This is a fake nametag at the credential desk, not a master key to the building

CVE-2026-11291 is a policy bypass in Chrome on Android's Android Autofill path that lets a remote attacker use a crafted HTML page to break the expected origin boundary for autofill. Affected versions are Google Chrome on Android before the June 2, 2026 stable fix train; the desktop security baseline is 149.0.7827.53/54, and Chrome's Android stable release carrying those same fixes is 149.0.7827.59. Practically, this is about autofill binding to the wrong web context, not memory corruption or sandbox escape.

The supplied 4.3/MEDIUM baseline is still too generous for enterprise prioritization. The big downward pressure is reachability: this is Android-only, client-side, requires user interaction, and appears tied to the Android Autofill integration path rather than a wormable browser bug. That makes it a phishing/credential-misdirection problem with low blast radius, not a fleet-emergency patch.

"Real risk is narrow: Android-only, user-driven, and likely limited to opt-in Android Autofill users."
02 · The Attack Path

4 steps from start to impact.

STEP 01

Land the victim on a crafted page

The attacker needs the user to open a malicious or compromised page in Chrome on Android. No exploit kit is required here; a simple HTML page is enough to present the malicious form structure.
Conditions required:
  • Victim uses Chrome on Android
  • Victim browses to attacker-controlled content
  • Chrome version is unpatched
Where this breaks in practice:
  • This is not remotely reachable like an internet-facing service
  • Email/web filtering, Safe Browsing, and mobile threat defense can block the lure before the bug matters
Detection/coverage: Traditional network scanners will not find this. Coverage is mainly browser-version inventory plus web/email telemetry for lure delivery.
STEP 02

Abuse autofill origin handling

The malicious page arranges form fields or frame relationships to trigger the Android Autofill policy error. The weaponized tool is just the crafted page itself; the attacker is exploiting browser logic, not a binary memory bug.
Conditions required:
  • The vulnerable Android Autofill code path is in use
  • The page can present fields that prompt autofill
Where this breaks in practice:
  • Per Google Android documentation, Chrome's Android Autofill path is especially relevant when users enable Autofill using another service
  • If the user is not using the Android Autofill path, the vulnerable reachability may be materially reduced
Detection/coverage: No reliable external signature. Browser telemetry, QA reproduction, and vendor advisory correlation are the realistic validation paths.
STEP 03

Get the user to trigger autofill

The victim still has to interact with the form so autofill populates data into the attacker-shaped context. In most realistic abuse cases, the attacker then relies on the user to submit or otherwise confirm the autofilled data.
Conditions required:
  • User interaction with form fields
  • Stored credentials or profile data available for autofill
Where this breaks in practice:
  • User interaction is mandatory
  • Security-aware users may notice origin mismatches or suspicious prompts
  • Some password managers show origin cues that may interrupt abuse
Detection/coverage: Little to no scanner coverage. Some password managers and browser security UX may expose unusual form behavior during testing.
STEP 04

Harvest mis-bound data or induce bad submission

The likely endgame is credential phishing or unintended form submission, not silent device takeover. The stated impact profile of C:N/I:L/A:N fits that reality: low-integrity misuse of browser trust, with no evidence of code execution or system compromise.
Conditions required:
  • Victim submits or confirms the filled data
  • Attacker receives the form contents or benefits from the incorrect action
Where this breaks in practice:
  • Impact is bounded by what autofill can populate and what the user submits
  • No privilege escalation, persistence, or host compromise from the CVE itself
Detection/coverage: Best detected via phishing monitoring, identity telemetry, and anomalous login analytics rather than vulnerability scanning.
03 · Intelligence Metadata

The supporting signals.

In-the-wild statusAs of 2026-06-06, I found no public evidence of active exploitation and no CISA KEV listing. This is an inference from the absence of the CVE in the public CISA KEV catalog and the lack of public campaign reporting in the sources reviewed.
PoC availabilityI found no public GitHub/Metasploit PoC indexed for CVE-2026-11291 as of 2026-06-06. Restricted Chromium bug details are normal shortly after release, so absence of a public PoC today does not mean long-term safety.
EPSSUser-supplied EPSS is 0.0001, which is effectively at the floor and consistent with a low-likelihood exploitation outlook. Per FIRST EPSS, EPSS is a forward-looking exploit probability signal, not an impact score.
KEV statusNot KEV-listed as of 2026-06-06; no federal due date applies.
CVSS vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N — the important part is UI:R plus I:L only. That screams *user-driven browser trust failure*, not autonomous compromise.
Affected versionsGoogle Chrome on Android prior to 149.0.7827.53 per the CVE record wording; operationally, the Android stable release carrying the corresponding fixes is 149.0.7827.59.
Fixed versionsDesktop security baseline: 149.0.7827.53/54. Chrome for Android stable with the same fixes: 149.0.7827.59. openSUSE also lists the fix set in Chromium 149.0.7827.53.
Exposure / scanning realityThis is a client-side mobile browser flaw, so Shodan/Censys/FOFA-style exposure counting is not meaningful. Reachability depends on Android Chrome deployment and whether users exercise the vulnerable autofill path.
Disclosure timelineChromium lists the bug as reported by Google on 2026-04-14; NVD shows the CVE published on 2026-06-04 and modified by CISA-ADP on 2026-06-05.
Researcher / reporterListed as reported by Google in the Chrome 149 security fixes, not an external bounty researcher.
04 · The Call

noisgate verdict.

Final Verdict
DOWNGRADED to LOW (2.9/10)

The decisive factor is reachability collapse: this bug needs a victim on Chrome for Android, interacting with a crafted web page, and likely traversing the Android Autofill integration path rather than a default internet-exposed service. That turns the issue into a narrow phishing-enabler with limited blast radius, not an enterprise patch fire.

HIGH Affected/fixed version mapping from Google and NVD sources
MEDIUM Real-world exploitability assessment given restricted Chromium bug details

Why this verdict

  • Android-only population cut reduces reachable targets immediately versus a cross-platform Chrome bug.
  • UI-required chain means the attacker must first win page delivery and then get the user to interact with autofill; that is compounding friction, not a one-packet exploit.
  • Likely opt-in Android Autofill path is the biggest downgrade driver: Google documents that Chrome's Android Autofill mode for third-party services requires users to enable Autofill using another service, shrinking exposed enterprise population further.
  • Impact ceiling is low by the vendor-supplied vector: C:N/I:L/A:N fits credential mis-binding or phishing assistance, not device compromise.
  • No KEV and no public exploitation evidence remove the one factor that would have justified overriding the friction audit upward.

Why not higher?

There is no sign of active exploitation, no evidence of widespread public weaponization, and no path to code execution or host takeover in the disclosed impact profile. More importantly, this is not an edge-service bug: it only matters when a user on Android Chrome reaches malicious content and exercises the autofill flow.

Why not lower?

It is still a same-origin/policy bypass inside a credential-adjacent workflow, which is security-relevant even if the impact is bounded. Enterprises that standardize on Android password managers or third-party autofill could have a meaningful niche population where this bug can materially aid phishing.

05 · Compensating Control

What to do — in priority order.

  1. Inventory Android Chrome versions — Identify devices with com.android.chrome below 149.0.7827.59 so you know whether this even exists in your fleet. For a LOW verdict there is no SLA beyond backlog hygiene, but you should still fold this into the next normal mobile-app hygiene sweep.
  2. Restrict third-party autofill where not required — If business policy does not require third-party password managers in Chrome on Android, keep users on the default path or disable nonessential autofill integrations. This directly attacks the most important reachability condition and can be applied as normal configuration hygiene for a LOW issue.
  3. Harden phishing controls for mobile web — Use Safe Browsing enforcement, secure web gateways, mobile threat defense, and identity risk signals to stop the malicious page before the browser bug is relevant. For this class of user-driven browser bug, prevention at the lure stage is more valuable than treating it like a perimeter emergency.
  4. Watch for anomalous credential use — Because likely abuse ends in credential submission, focus on impossible-travel, unfamiliar-device, and risky-sign-in detections rather than trying to signature the CVE itself. Keep this in your normal identity-defense program; again, LOW means backlog hygiene, not incident-level urgency.
What doesn't work
  • Perimeter vulnerability scans don't help because this is not an internet-facing service flaw.
  • EDR on laptops doesn't cover the primary exposure well if your affected population is managed Android devices.
  • WAF rules are mostly irrelevant unless they block the phishing page itself; the bug is in the client browser's autofill policy handling.
06 · Verification

Crowdsourced verification payload.

Run this from an auditor workstation with adb installed against a USB- or network-connected Android device. Invoke it as ./check_cve_2026_11291.sh or ./check_cve_2026_11291.sh <device-serial>; it needs ADB access to the target device but no root, and checks whether installed Chrome is below the Android fixed build 149.0.7827.59.

noisgate-verify.sh
BASHREAD-ONLYSAFE
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# check_cve_2026_11291.sh
# Purpose: Check whether Chrome on Android is vulnerable to CVE-2026-11291
# Logic: Vulnerable if com.android.chrome version is lower than 149.0.7827.59
# Exit codes: 0=PATCHED, 1=VULNERABLE, 2=UNKNOWN

set -u

PKG="com.android.chrome"
FIXED="149.0.7827.59"
SERIAL="${1:-}"
ADB=(adb)

if [[ -n "$SERIAL" ]]; then
  ADB+=( -s "$SERIAL" )
fi

command -v adb >/dev/null 2>&1 || { echo "UNKNOWN: adb not found in PATH"; exit 2; }

if ! "${ADB[@]}" get-state >/dev/null 2>&1; then
  echo "UNKNOWN: no reachable adb device"
  exit 2
fi

raw_version=$("${ADB[@]}" shell dumpsys package "$PKG" 2>/dev/null | tr -d '\r' | grep -m1 'versionName=' || true)

if [[ -z "$raw_version" ]]; then
  echo "UNKNOWN: package $PKG not found or version unavailable"
  exit 2
fi

version="${raw_version#*=}"
version="${version%% *}"

norm_ver() {
  local IFS=.
  local v="$1"
  local a b c d
  read -r a b c d <<< "$v"
  a=${a:-0}; b=${b:-0}; c=${c:-0}; d=${d:-0}
  printf "%05d%05d%05d%05d\n" "$a" "$b" "$c" "$d"
}

installed_n=$(norm_ver "$version")
fixed_n=$(norm_ver "$FIXED")

if [[ "$installed_n" < "$fixed_n" ]]; then
  echo "VULNERABLE: $PKG version $version is lower than fixed $FIXED"
  exit 1
fi

if [[ "$installed_n" >= "$fixed_n" ]]; then
  echo "PATCHED: $PKG version $version is at or above fixed $FIXED"
  exit 0
fi

echo "UNKNOWN: unable to compare versions (installed=$version fixed=$FIXED)"
exit 2
07 · Bottom Line

If you remember one thing.

TL;DR
Monday morning, do not treat this like a fleet emergency. First, inventory managed Android devices for com.android.chrome versions below 149.0.7827.59 and identify whether your mobile standard enables third-party/Android Autofill in Chrome; that reachability question matters more than the raw CVSS. For a LOW verdict there is no noisgate mitigation SLA and no noisgate remediation SLA beyond backlog hygiene, so document the narrow exposure, update affected devices in the next normal mobile app-update ring, and spend urgent cycles elsewhere unless your environment heavily depends on third-party autofill on Android Chrome.

Sources

  1. NVD CVE-2026-11291
  2. Chrome Releases - Stable Channel Update for Desktop (June 2, 2026)
  3. Chrome Releases - Chrome for Android Update (June 2, 2026)
  4. Android Developers - Build autofill services
  5. Android Developers Blog - Timeline update: third-party autofill services support on Chrome on Android
  6. Chrome for Developers - Shared autofill across iframes: an initial proposal
  7. FIRST EPSS overview
  8. CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog
Peer Review

What defenders are saying.

Submit a review attribution: handle + country only
0 flags selected · stored anonymously
Validation Results

Crowdsourced verification outputs.

Results submitted by users who ran the verification payload against their environment.