Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-30983 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Color Iccdev. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 4th 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-2026-30983 is a stack buffer overflow vulnerability in the iccDEV libraries and tools, which are used for working with ICC color management profiles. The issue resides in the icFixXml() function, where an unsafe strcpy operation leads to stack memory corruption or application crashes. It affects versions of iccDEV prior to 2.3.1.5 and is associated with CWEs-120 (buffer copy without checking size of input), CWE-121 (stack-based buffer overflow), and CWE-787 (out-of-bounds write). The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating high severity due to its potential for significant impact.
A local attacker with no privileges can exploit this vulnerability by tricking a user into processing a specially crafted ICC color profile that triggers the buffer overflow in icFixXml(). This requires user interaction, such as opening a malicious file in an application that uses iccDEV. Successful exploitation could result in high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts, including arbitrary code execution, data corruption, or denial of service via crashes.
Mitigation is available through upgrading to iccDEV version 2.3.1.5 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. Official advisories and resources include the GitHub security advisory (GHSA-h3ph-mwq5-3883), issue tracker (#624), pull request (#634), and release notes for v2.3.1.5. Security practitioners should audit dependent applications using iccDEV for color profile handling and apply patches promptly.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-10725
Vulnerability Data
iccDEV provides a set of libraries and tools for working with ICC color management profiles. Prior to 2.3.1.5, there is a stack buffer overflow in icFixXml() (strcpy) causing stack memory corruption or crash. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.3.1.5.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 2 hardening rules · 2 OS baselines
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability to execute injected code after a stack overflow.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
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 enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248594 OL 8 must implement address space layout randomization (ASLR) to protect its memory from unauthorized code execution. prevents CWE-121
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271452 OL 9 must use a Linux Security Module configured to enforce limits on system services. prevents CWE-121