Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-25585 is a high-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) 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 13th 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — 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-2026-25585 is an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in the iccDEV libraries and tools, which facilitate interaction, manipulation, and application of ICC color management profiles. The issue resides in IccCmm.cpp at line 5793, where improper array bounds validation occurs during ICC profile processing. A malformed ICC profile can trigger the flaw in the color management module, leading to memory disclosure or a segmentation fault from accessing memory beyond array boundaries. This affects iccDEV versions prior to 2.3.1.3 and is rated 7.8 on the CVSS 3.1 scale (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), with associated CWEs including CWE-119, CWE-125, CWE-129, and CWE-787.
A local, unprivileged attacker can exploit this vulnerability by supplying a specially crafted, malformed ICC profile that a user processes through iccDEV. Exploitation requires low complexity and user interaction, such as opening the profile in an application leveraging iccDEV. Successful exploitation enables high-impact outcomes, including disclosure of sensitive memory contents, corruption of data (integrity violation), or system crashes via segmentation faults.
The vulnerability has been addressed in iccDEV version 2.3.1.3. Official mitigation guidance from the project's GitHub security advisory (GHSA-pmqx-q624-jg6w), issue tracker (#552), pull request (#563), and patching commit (ba81cd94b9c82b1d3905d45427badbd9d8adfa15) recommends upgrading to the fixed version to prevent improper bounds checking during profile indexing.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-5317
Vulnerability Data
iccDEV provides a set of libraries and tools that allow for the interaction, manipulation, and application of ICC color management profiles. Prior to version 2.3.1.3, there is a vulnerability IccCmm.cpp:5793 when reading through index during ICC profile processing. The malformed…
more
ICC profile triggers improper array bounds validation in the color management module, resulting in an out-of-bounds read that can lead to memory disclosure or segmentation fault from accessing memory beyond the array boundary. This issue has been patched in version 2.3.1.3.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V17.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly finds out-of-bounds read flaws through static analysis, fuzzing, and dynamic bounds checks.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure engineering principles require memory-safe design and coding that structurally avoids buffer-boundary violations.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation directly enforces bounds checking that stops out-of-bounds reads/writes from being introduced or reached.
Memory protection restricts exploitation impact of buffer overflows without eliminating the underlying coding 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 SDLC practices (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.
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 out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.