Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-21490 is a medium-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Color Iccdev. Its CVSS base score is 6.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 9th 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 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-2026-21490 is a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the iccDEV library, a set of libraries and tools for interacting with, manipulating, and applying International Color Consortium (ICC) color management profiles. The flaw resides in the `CIccTagLut16::Validate()` function and affects all versions prior to 2.3.1.2. Applications or systems that process untrusted ICC color profiles using this library are vulnerable, potentially leading to memory corruption during profile validation.
Exploitation requires local access (AV:L) with low complexity (AC:L), no privileges (PR:N), and user interaction (UI:R), such as convincing a user to open or process a malicious ICC profile. A successful attack can result in high availability impact (A:H) through application crashes or denial of service, with low confidentiality impact (C:L) but no integrity impact (I:N) and unchanged scope (S:U). The vulnerability maps to CWEs-122 (Heap-based Buffer Overflow), CWE-125 (Out-of-bounds Read), and CWE-193 (Off-by-one Error), with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.1 (Medium).
Mitigation is available via upgrading to iccDEV version 2.3.1.2, which includes a patch addressing the issue, as detailed in GitHub commits 7c2cb719a9de1c00844e457e070d657314383ee3 and e91fe722ac54ce497d410153e7405090e0565d7b, issue #397, and security advisory GHSA-9q9c-699q-xr2q. No workarounds are known.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-1144
Vulnerability Data
iccDEV provides a set of libraries and tools that allow for the interaction, manipulation, and application of International Color Consortium (ICC) color management profiles. A vulnerability present in versions prior to 2.3.1.2 affects users of the iccDEV library who process…
more
ICC color profiles. It results in heap buffer overflow in `CIccTagLut16::Validate()`. Version 2.3.1.2 contains a patch. No known workarounds are available.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.2.1V1.4.1
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 development standards and tools can embed bounds-checking and arithmetic-correctness rules that stop off-by-one mistakes at introduction.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
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.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
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.