Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-28493

Memory Safety in Imagemagick ≤ 7.1.2-16

Published
10 March 2026
Modified
12 March 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 6.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0019 9th percentile
Risk Priority 36 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-28493 is a medium-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 9th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to versions 7.1.2-16, an integer overflow vulnerability exists in the SIXEL decoer. The vulnerability allows an attacker to perform an out of bounds via a specially…

more

crafted image. This vulnerability is fixed in 7.1.2-16.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI

T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
T1204.002 Malicious File Execution
An adversary may rely upon a user opening a malicious file in order to gain execution.
Why these techniques?

Integer overflow in image decoder enables memory corruption/RCE via crafted image file, directly mapping to client-side exploitation and malicious file execution.

Confidence: MEDIUM · MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v19.0

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-56363Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2025-55154Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2025-62171Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-42050Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-33900Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2025-69204Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-25970Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-34238Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-25794Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-46520Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick

Affected Assets

imagemagick
imagemagick
≤ 7.1.2-16

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • SI-2 Flaw Remediation
  • SI-10 Information Input Validation
  • CM-7 Least Functionality
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V5.2.6

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

prevent

Directly requires applying the vendor patch that eliminates the integer overflow in the SIXEL decoder.

prevent

Enforces validation of image input streams to reject malformed SIXEL data that triggers the overflow and subsequent out-of-bounds access.

prevent

Allows disabling the SIXEL decoder entirely when the format is not required, removing the vulnerable code path from exposure to untrusted images.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

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.

detects

Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.

prevents

Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.

degrades

Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.

degrades

Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.

References