CVE-2025-55005
Memory Safety in Imagemagick ≤ 7.1.2-1
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-55005 is a medium-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 18th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-16 (Memory Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-28577
Vulnerability Data
ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to version 7.1.2-1, when preparing to transform from Log to sRGB colorspaces, the logmap construction fails to handle cases where the reference-black or reference-white value is…
more
larger than 1024. This leads to corrupting memory beyond the end of the allocated logmap buffer. This issue has been patched in version 7.1.2-1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Heap-buffer overflow in ImageMagick during Log to sRGB colorspace transformation via crafted files (e.g., MIFF) enables code execution, mapping to Exploitation for Client Execution.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces validation of untrusted image colorspace parameters (reference-black/white) before logmap buffer allocation, blocking the out-of-bounds write.
Applies memory-protection mechanisms (e.g., bounds checking, guard pages) that prevent the described buffer overrun from corrupting adjacent memory.
Requires timely application of the vendor patch (7.1.2-1) that corrects the logmap size calculation flaw.
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-development practices directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
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 and acceptance can detect heap overflows before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that reduce the likelihood of introducing heap overflows.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory APIs that mitigate heap overflows.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safety and input-validation controls that address heap overflows.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.
Change management ensures controlled deployment of fixes for discovered heap-overflow vulnerabilities.