Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-21486 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Color Iccdev. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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-2026-21486 affects iccDEV, a set of libraries and tools for working with ICC color management profiles. Versions 2.3.1.1 and prior contain multiple vulnerabilities in the CIccSparseMatrix::CIccSparseMatrix function, including Use After Free (CWE-416), Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122), Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190), and Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787). These flaws were published on 2026-01-06 and assigned a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8.
An unprivileged local attacker can exploit these issues with low complexity if user interaction is involved, such as tricking a user into processing a malicious ICC profile. Successful exploitation enables high-impact outcomes, including arbitrary code execution, data tampering, or system crashes due to the memory corruption primitives.
The vulnerabilities are fixed in iccDEV version 2.3.1.2. Security practitioners should upgrade to this version, as detailed in the GitHub security advisory (GHSA-mg98-j5q2-674w) and the fixing commit (1ab7363f38a20089934d3410c88f714eea392bf5).
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-1155
Vulnerability Data
iccDEV provides a set of libraries and tools for working with ICC color management profiles. Versions 2.3.1.1 and below contain Use After Free, Heap-based Buffer Overflow and Integer Overflow or Wraparound and Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities in its CIccSparseMatrix::CIccSparseMatrix function. This…
more
issue is fixed in version 2.3.1.2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 3 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
V1.4.1V5.2.6V1.4.3
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Process isolation confines the blast radius of use-after-free memory corruption to a single execution domain.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
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 processes help ensure memory-safety fixes are deployed consistently.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248592 OL 8 must clear memory when it is freed to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-416
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230279 RHEL 8 must clear memory when it is freed to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-416
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
- V-257794 RHEL 9 must clear memory when it is freed to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-416