Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-33908

DoS in Imagemagick ≤ 6.9.13-44

Published
13 April 2026
Modified
15 July 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0051 41th percentile
Risk Priority 58 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-33908 is a high-severity Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 41th 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 CM-6 (Configuration Settings) 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-2026-33908 is a stack exhaustion vulnerability in ImageMagick, an open-source software suite for image editing and manipulation. In versions prior to 7.1.2-19 and 6.9.13-44, the Magick component processes XML files by recursively freeing memory in the XML tree via the DestroyXMLTree() function without imposing a depth limit. This allows deeply nested XML structures to exhaust stack memory, leading to a denial-of-service condition. The issue is classified under CWE-674 and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5.

The vulnerability can be exploited by any remote attacker with network access, requiring low attack complexity, no privileges, and no user interaction. An attacker simply needs to supply a crafted image file containing deeply nested XML structures to an ImageMagick instance for processing, triggering recursive memory deallocation that overflows the stack and crashes the application, resulting in high-impact availability disruption with no confidentiality or integrity effects.

Mitigation is available through upgrades to ImageMagick versions 6.9.13-44 or 7.1.2-19, where the issue has been fixed. Official resources include the GitHub security advisory at GHSA-fwvm-ggf6-2p4x, the patching commit ccdc01180276aa2cb3d4a32a611aa4f417061cd8, and the release page for 7.1.2-19. A related update appears in Magick.NET version 14.12.0.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. In versions below both 7.1.2-19 and 6.9.13-44, Magick frees the memory of the XML tree via the `DestroyXMLTree()` function; however, this process is executed recursively with no…

more

depth limit imposed. When Magick processes an XML file with deeply nested structures, it will exhaust the stack memory, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. This issue has been fixed in versions 6.9.13-44 and 7.1.2-19.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1499 Endpoint Denial of Service Impact
Adversaries may perform Endpoint Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to degrade or block the availability of services to users.
T1499.003 Application Exhaustion Flood Impact
Adversaries may target resource intensive features of applications to cause a denial of service (DoS), denying availability to those applications.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-56366Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-61863Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-61870Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-48734Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-25638Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-25796Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-56364Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-56368Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-46557Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-53464Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick

Affected Assets

imagemagick
imagemagick
≤ 6.9.13-44 · 7.0.0-0 — 7.1.2-19

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Secure configuration settings can disable DTD processing or cap entity expansion in XML parsers.

Input validation can reject or constrain data that would otherwise drive unbounded recursive calls.

Least-functionality configuration can prohibit unsafe DTD features or external entity resolution.

DoS protection mechanisms limit the resource-exhaustion impact of uncontrolled recursion without eliminating the flaw.

System monitoring can observe anomalous resource consumption that signals runaway recursion after it begins.

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 full match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly prevent introduction of improper recursive entity handling in XML code.

PR.PS-01 mostly match
prevents

Hardened configuration baselines can disable or limit DTD entity expansion in XML parsers.

DE.CM-09 partial match
prevents

Runtime monitoring of compute resources can detect excessive consumption caused by uncontrolled recursion.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record uncontrolled recursion flaws before deployment.

PR.IR-04 partial match
prevents

Capacity monitoring and resource provisioning can absorb or limit the impact of runaway recursion.

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.

finds

Security testing in development can detect excessive recursion via static analysis or fuzzing.

prevents

Secure development life cycle requires controls that prevent uncontrolled recursion through design and code review.

prevents

Application security requirements can mandate recursion limits or stack-depth checks.

prevents

Secure system architecture principles include resource-management and input-validation rules that limit recursion.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly prohibit or constrain recursive constructs that could exhaust stack or memory.

finds

Capacity management includes monitoring and limits that mitigate resource exhaustion from runaway recursion.

References