Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/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-2026-30883 is a medium-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 5.7 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Process Injection (T1055); ranked at the 2th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) 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-2026-30883 is a heap overflow vulnerability (CWE-119) in ImageMagick, a free and open-source software suite for editing and manipulating digital images. The issue arises when encoding a PNG image with an extremely large image profile, affecting all versions prior to 7.1.2-16 and 6.9.13-41. It was published on 2026-03-10 and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.7 (AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H), indicating medium severity with primary impacts on availability and limited integrity.
A local attacker can exploit this vulnerability by supplying a specially crafted image with an oversized profile to trigger the heap overflow during PNG encoding. No privileges or user interaction are required, but the attack demands high complexity and local access to the vulnerable ImageMagick instance. Successful exploitation could lead to high availability disruption, such as denial-of-service via application crash, and limited integrity violations, potentially allowing memory corruption without confidentiality impact or scope change.
The official ImageMagick GitHub security advisory (GHSA-qmw5-2p58-xvrc) confirms the vulnerability and states it is fixed in versions 7.1.2-16 and 6.9.13-41. Security practitioners should update to these patched releases immediately and validate image inputs to prevent processing of malformed profiles, especially in automated image processing pipelines.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-10391
Vulnerability Data
ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to versions 7.1.2-16 and 6.9.13-41, an extremely large image profile could result in a heap overflow when encoding a PNG image. This vulnerability is fixed in…
more
7.1.2-16 and 6.9.13-41.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V17.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Secure engineering principles require memory-safe design and coding that structurally avoids buffer-boundary violations.
Input validation directly enforces bounds checking that stops out-of-bounds reads/writes from being introduced or reached.
Memory protection restricts exploitation impact of buffer overflows without eliminating the underlying coding flaw.
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 (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.
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 catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.