Yes. CISA added CVE-2023-7024 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on 2 January 2024, which it does only when there is reliable evidence of active exploitation. CISA has not linked it to known ransomware campaigns. Google Chromium WebRTC, an open-source project providing web browsers with real-time communication, contains a heap buffer overflow vulnerability that allows a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.
What it means for a Chromium WebRTC flaw to be actively exploited
CISA’s KEV listing is the practical signal that matters for this question: once a vulnerability is added there, defenders should treat it as exploitation in the wild, not as a theoretical browser issue. For CVE-2023-7024, the operational question is whether Chrome-based browsers, embedded web views, or downstream products using Chromium components were exposed during the relevant window.
That is why exposed browser fleets deserve the same urgency as server-side flaws. A webrtc heap buffer overflow can be triggered through a crafted page, so the attack surface is user browsing, not just a direct network service. In practice, exposure assessment should include managed browsers, unmanaged endpoints, and any environment where browser updates lag behind release channels.
For vulnerability handling, the most useful first step is to separate “patched” from “not yet verified.” Browsers update frequently, but real-world exposure often persists because devices are offline, auto-update is blocked, or users run alternate Chromium-based products. The vendor advisory and the CISA KEV catalogue remain the authoritative sources for version and remediation detail.
Why browser exploitation is operationally different from a typical CVE
Browser exploitation often becomes a low-friction initial access path because the victim only needs to visit content under attacker control. That makes the issue broader than a single product defect: it is a trust-boundary problem between content rendering, media handling, and the local browser process. Even when exploitation does not immediately lead to full compromise, it can still create a foothold for credential theft, session theft, or chained exploitation.
For browser and web-facing attack chains, NHI Management Group’s Enterprise Browser and Browser Security Guide is useful because the browser is often where attackers reach saved secrets, active sessions, and privileged web access. A memory corruption bug becomes more serious when the browser already holds access to SaaS consoles, cloud portals, or internal admin tools.
The same pattern appears in other exploited flaws where the browser or adjacent access layer becomes the compromise entry point. The key practitioner lesson is that endpoint hardening, update enforcement, and browser isolation are not separate concerns from vulnerability management, they are part of the same exposure chain.
Relatedly, CISA’s catalogue and the CVE record itself help answer whether the issue is being exploited, but they do not tell you whether your own environment is already affected. That requires local inventory, browser version validation, and confirmation that fleet policy actually reached every endpoint.
How to respond when patching is delayed or rollout is uneven
If immediate patching is not possible, the goal is to reduce exposure while you close the gap. For browser-driven exploitation, that usually means shrinking who can browse risky content, tightening browser policy, isolating high-risk sessions, and forcing rapid update verification on managed fleets. The longer the delay, the more important it becomes to assume exposure rather than wait for a confirmed incident.
Use the vendor’s fix path and CISA’s KEV entry as the source of truth for remediation timing, then validate deployment from the endpoint side. If you must stage the rollout, prioritise internet-facing workstations, administrative users, and systems that retain persistent browser sessions or access sensitive business applications. A delayed patch on a kiosk is not the same as a delayed patch on an administrator laptop.
The remediation playbook should also include compromise checks, especially if the vulnerable browser was used to access sensitive portals. Hunt for unusual browser crashes, suspicious downloads, new extensions, unexpected login events, and session anomalies. If the browser stores credentials or tokens, assess whether rotation is warranted after confirmed exploitation or credible exposure.
In parallel, Zero-Day and Exploited Vulnerabilities Guide is a useful companion because it frames the response sequence for actively exploited issues: triage, emergency mitigation, and post-patch hunting. That sequence fits browser flaws well because the window between disclosure, exploitation, and enterprise remediation is often short.
Risk and Threat Considerations
Active exploitation of a browser memory corruption flaw changes the risk posture immediately because the attacker can move from remote delivery to code execution or a crash-prone exploit chain with only user interaction. The practical danger is not just the bug itself, but the browser context it can expose, including authenticated web sessions, saved secrets, and access to internal services.
Failure mechanism: A crafted HTML page or related content path can trigger heap corruption in the browser process, giving the attacker a foothold that may be used to escalate from content rendering to broader endpoint compromise or secondary credential theft.
Impact: The likely outcome is exposure of user sessions, browser-held credentials, or a launch point for deeper compromise, especially where browsers are used to reach administrative consoles or cloud services.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
MITRE ATT&CK addresses the attack and risk surface, while NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, CIS Controls v8, OWASP ASVS and NIST CSF 2.0 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| MITRE ATT&CK | T1185 — Browser Session Hijacking | Browser exploitation can steal or abuse authenticated browser sessions. |
| Recommendation — Detect browser-session abuse and revoke affected sessions quickly. | ||
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | RA-5 — Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning | An actively exploited browser CVE requires inventory and exposure verification. |
| Recommendation — Continuously verify browser versions and prioritize exploited flaws for remediation. | ||
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-7 — Continuous Vulnerability Management | KEV-listed browser flaws need rapid prioritization and remediation tracking. |
| Recommendation — Prioritize KEV-listed browser vulnerabilities and confirm remediation completion. | ||
| OWASP ASVS | V3 — Web Frontend Security | The flaw is triggered through browser-rendered web content and front-end handling. |
| Recommendation — Harden browser-facing content handling and reduce exposure to malicious pages. | ||
| NIST CSF 2.0 | DE.CM-01 — Network monitoring to detect anomalies and events | Active exploitation calls for monitoring signs of browser compromise and abnormal use. |
| Recommendation — Monitor for browser compromise indicators and unusual endpoint activity. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to verify: Confirm the exact Chromium-based browser builds in use, not just the headline product name. Managed Chrome, Edge, Electron-based apps, and embedded web views can have different update states, so inventory needs to cover all Chromium consumers, not only the primary browser.
Decision rule: If the affected browser can reach sensitive business apps or privileged portals, treat the endpoint as high priority for patch verification and session review. If patching is delayed, reduce browsing exposure for those users first, not last.
What practitioners underestimate: The vulnerability may be in the browser, but the business impact often comes from what the browser already knows and can reach. A single exploited session can be more operationally significant than the memory corruption event that started it.
Practitioner takeaway: For actively exploited browser CVEs, the question is not only whether the flaw exists on a device, but whether that browser instance can still be trusted with live sessions and privileged access.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
Deepen Your Knowledge
Free weekly newsletter
Subscribe to the NHI & AI Identity Journal
The latest on NHI and Agentic AI security – articles, research, breaches, news and events every week.
Bonus 33% off our NHI Course when you subscribe.
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on October 19, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org