CVE-2026-25970
Memory Safety in Imagemagick ≤ 6.9.13-40
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-25970 is a medium-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 19th 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 SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — 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-2026-25970 is a signed integer overflow vulnerability (CWE-190) in the SIXEL decoder of ImageMagick, a free and open-source software suite for editing and manipulating digital images. The flaw affects versions prior to 7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40. It occurs during buffer reallocation operations where pointer arithmetic using signed 32-bit integers overflows when processing a maliciously crafted SIXEL image file, potentially leading to memory corruption.
An unauthenticated attacker (PR:N) can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network (AV:N) with low attack complexity (AC:L) and no user interaction (UI:N), as reflected in its CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.3 (S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L). Exploitation triggers memory corruption in the ImageMagick process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition with low availability impact.
ImageMagick has patched the vulnerability in versions 7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40. Security practitioners should upgrade affected systems to these versions for mitigation. Additional details are provided in the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/security/advisories/GHSA-xg29-8ghv-v4xr.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-7429
Vulnerability Data
ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to versions 7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40, a signed integer overflow vulnerability in ImageMagick's SIXEL decoder allows an attacker to trigger memory corruption and denial of service when…
more
processing a maliciously crafted SIXEL image file. The vulnerability occurs during buffer reallocation operations where pointer arithmetic using signed 32-bit integers overflows. Versions 7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40 contain a patch.
- 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.