Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-34238

Memory Safety in Imagemagick ≤ 6.9.13-44

Published
13 April 2026
Modified
17 April 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.1
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0015 4th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-34238 is a medium-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 5.1 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); 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 SI-16 (Memory Protection) 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. In versions below both 7.1.2-19 and 6.9.13-44, an integer overflow in the despeckle operation causes a heap buffer overflow on 32-bit builds that will result in an…

more

out of bounds write. This issue has been fixed in versions 6.9.13-44 and 7.1.2-19.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1204.002 Malicious File Execution
An adversary may rely upon a user opening a malicious file in order to gain execution.
Why these techniques?

Heap buffer overflow from integer overflow enables RCE via malicious image files processed by ImageMagick in public-facing apps or by users.

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

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-25794Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-23876Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-28693Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-33900Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-28493Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-25970Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-25897Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2026-56363Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2025-55154Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick
CVE-2025-62171Same product: Imagemagick Imagemagick

Affected Assets

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

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • SI-2 Flaw Remediation
  • SI-16 Memory Protection
  • SI-10 Information Input Validation
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 despeckle code path.

prevent

Enforces memory-protection mechanisms that block exploitation of the resulting heap out-of-bounds write on 32-bit builds.

prevent

Validates image inputs before they reach the despeckle operation, reducing the chance malformed data triggers the overflow.

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.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.

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.

prevents

Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.

References