Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-26284 is a medium-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 33th 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-2026-26284 is a vulnerability in ImageMagick, a free and open-source software suite for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to versions 7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40, the software lacks proper boundary checking when processing Huffman-coded data in PCD (Photo CD) files. Specifically, a decoder function suffers from incorrect initialization, which can lead to an out-of-bounds read. This issue is classified under CWE-122 (Heap-based Buffer Over-read), CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write), and CWE-125 (Out-of-bounds Read), with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L).
The vulnerability can be exploited remotely by unauthenticated attackers with network access, requiring low complexity and no user interaction. By supplying a specially crafted PCD file to an ImageMagick instance, such as in a web application or image processing pipeline, an attacker can trigger the out-of-bounds read. This may result in limited disclosure of sensitive information from memory or a denial of service via application crash, though integrity is unaffected.
The official GitHub security advisory (GHSA-wrhr-rf8j-r842) confirms that ImageMagick versions 7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40 address the issue with a patch fixing the decoder's initialization and boundary checks. Security practitioners should upgrade to these versions or later and consider disabling PCD file processing if not required, via ImageMagick's policy configuration.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-7413
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, ImageMagick lacks proper boundary checking when processing Huffman-coded data from PCD (Photo CD) files. The decoder contains an function that has…
more
an incorrect initialization that could cause an out of bounds read. 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
—
—
—
V1.4.1
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 secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
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.