CVE-2026-25971
Memory Safety in Imagemagick ≤ 6.9.13-40
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-25971 is a medium-severity Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 6.2 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 11th 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-2026-25971 affects ImageMagick, a free and open-source software suite for editing and manipulating digital images. The vulnerability arises in the Magick component, where prior to versions 7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40, the software fails to check for circular references between two MSL (Magick Scripting Language) files. This flaw triggers a stack overflow, classified under CWE-674 (Uncontrolled Recursion) and CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write), with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.2 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).
A local attacker can exploit this vulnerability with low complexity and no privileges or user interaction required. By providing specially crafted MSL files with circular references, the attacker induces a stack overflow in ImageMagick, resulting in high-impact availability disruption, such as process crashes or denial of service.
The official GitHub security advisory (GHSA-8mpr-6xr2-chhc) confirms that ImageMagick versions 7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40 include patches to address the circular reference check failure. Security practitioners should update to these fixed versions to mitigate the issue.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-7427
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, Magick fails to check for circular references between two MSLs, leading to a stack overflow. Versions 7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40 contain a…
more
patch.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Input validation can reject or constrain data that would otherwise drive unbounded recursive calls.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
DoS protection mechanisms limit the resource-exhaustion impact of uncontrolled recursion without eliminating the flaw.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
System monitoring can observe anomalous resource consumption that signals runaway recursion after it begins.
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 prevent coding errors such as missing recursion limits or termination conditions.
Runtime monitoring of compute resources can detect excessive consumption caused by uncontrolled recursion.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record uncontrolled recursion flaws before deployment.
Capacity monitoring and resource provisioning can absorb or limit the impact of runaway recursion.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 excessive recursion via static analysis or fuzzing.
Secure development life cycle requires controls that prevent uncontrolled recursion through design and code review.
Application security requirements can mandate recursion limits or stack-depth checks.
Secure system architecture principles include resource-management and input-validation rules that limit recursion.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit or constrain recursive constructs that could exhaust stack or memory.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.