Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-62171 is a medium-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 48% 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 SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-34893
Vulnerability Data
ImageMagick is an open source software suite for displaying, converting, and editing raster image files. In ImageMagick versions prior to 7.1.2-7 and 6.9.13-32, an integer overflow vulnerability exists in the BMP decoder on 32-bit systems. The vulnerability occurs in coders/bmp.c…
more
when calculating the extent value by multiplying image columns by bits per pixel. On 32-bit systems with size_t of 4 bytes, a malicious BMP file with specific dimensions can cause this multiplication to overflow and wrap to zero. The overflow check added to address CVE-2025-57803 is placed after the overflow occurs, making it ineffective. A specially crafted 58-byte BMP file with width set to 536,870,912 and 32 bits per pixel can trigger this overflow, causing the bytes_per_line calculation to become zero. This vulnerability only affects 32-bit builds of ImageMagick where default resource limits for width, height, and area have been manually increased beyond their defaults. 64-bit systems with size_t of 8 bytes are not vulnerable, and systems using default ImageMagick resource limits are not vulnerable. The vulnerability is fixed in versions 7.1.2-7 and 6.9.13-32.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
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 require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
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 can detect integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.