Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-25989 is a high-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 46th 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-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-2026-25989 affects ImageMagick, a free and open-source software suite for editing and manipulating digital images. The vulnerability exists in versions prior to 7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40 due to an off-by-one boundary check that uses ">" instead of ">=" when processing SVG files. This flaw allows a crafted SVG file to bypass a guard clause and trigger an undefined cast to (size_t), resulting in a denial of service. It is associated with CWEs 190 (Integer Overflow or Wraparound), 681 (Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types), and 193 (Off-by-One Error), and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5.
The vulnerability can be exploited by remote attackers with network access, requiring low attack complexity, no privileges, and no user interaction. Exploitation involves providing a specially crafted SVG file to an affected ImageMagick instance, leading to a crash or resource exhaustion that disrupts service availability, with no impact on confidentiality or integrity.
The official ImageMagick GitHub security advisory (GHSA-7355-pwx2-pm84) confirms that versions 7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40 address the issue with a patch fixing the boundary check. Security practitioners should update to these or later versions to mitigate the risk.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-7416
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 crafted SVG file can cause a denial of service. An off-by-one boundary check (`>` instead of `>=`) that allows bypass…
more
the guard and reach an undefined `(size_t)` cast. 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
—
—
—
V6.2.1V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed bounds-checking and arithmetic-correctness rules that stop off-by-one mistakes at introduction.
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.