Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-53101 is a high-severity Buffer Underflow (CWE-124) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 47% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-53101 is a stack overflow vulnerability (CWE-124) in ImageMagick, a free and open-source software suite for editing and manipulating digital images. It affects versions prior to 7.1.2-0 and 6.9.13-26, specifically in the `magick mogrify` command. The flaw occurs when multiple consecutive `%d` format specifiers are provided in a filename template, causing internal pointer arithmetic to generate an address below the beginning of the stack buffer and triggering a stack overflow via `vsnprintf()`.
The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.4 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H), indicating it can be exploited remotely over the network by unauthenticated attackers with no privileges required and no user interaction needed, though it demands high attack complexity. Exploitation allows attackers to severely impact system integrity and availability, such as through denial of service or corruption of image processing operations, without affecting confidentiality.
Mitigation is addressed by upgrading to ImageMagick versions 7.1.2-0 or 6.9.13-26, which include the fixing commit at https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/commit/66dc8f51c11b0ae1f1cdeacd381c3e9a4de69774. Official advisories provide further details, including the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/security/advisories/GHSA-qh3h-j545-h8c9 and a Debian LTS announcement at https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/09/msg00012.html.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-21389
Vulnerability Data
ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. In versions prior to 7.1.2-0 and 6.9.13-26, in ImageMagick's `magick mogrify` command, specifying multiple consecutive `%d` format specifiers in a filename template causes internal pointer arithmetic to…
more
generate an address below the beginning of the stack buffer, resulting in a stack overflow through `vsnprintf()`. Versions 7.1.2-0 and 6.9.13-26 fix the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can discover buffer underwrite flaws before deployment but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation can enforce bounds on indices or pointers before buffer writes, structurally stopping underwrite conditions.
Memory protection mechanisms limit the blast radius of an out-of-bounds write even if the coding flaw exists.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent introduction of buffer underwrite flaws via coding standards, reviews, and testing.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover buffer underwrite issues but do not prevent their creation.
Patching removes instances of the weakness after discovery but does not address root-cause prevention in code.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development catches buffer-underflow defects before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent buffer underflow.
Application security requirements can specify buffer-size and pointer-safety rules.
Secure architecture and engineering principles require safe memory-handling patterns.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds checks.