Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-34544 is a high-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Openexr Openexr. Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 16th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — 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-2026-34544 is an out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the OpenEXR library, which provides the specification and reference implementation for the EXR file format used in the motion picture industry for image storage. The issue affects versions 3.4.0 through 3.4.7 and is triggered by a crafted B44 or B44A EXR file processed via the exr_decoding_run() function. It is classified under CWE-190 (Integer Overflow or Wraparound) and CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write), with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.3 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
A local attacker with low privileges can exploit this vulnerability by tricking a user into decoding a malicious EXR file in an affected application. Successful exploitation typically results in an immediate application crash, but depending on memory layout, it may corrupt adjacent heap allocations, potentially enabling arbitrary code execution, data tampering, or further compromise given the high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts.
The vulnerability has been addressed in OpenEXR version 3.4.8, as detailed in the project's security advisory (GHSA-h762-rhv3-h25v), release notes, and the patching commit (35e7aa35e22c1975606be86e859f31cc1fc598ee). Security practitioners should update to version 3.4.8 or later and validate EXR file inputs in applications relying on OpenEXR decoding.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-18060
Vulnerability Data
OpenEXR provides the specification and reference implementation of the EXR file format, an image storage format for the motion picture industry. From version 3.4.0 to before version 3.4.8, a crafted B44 or B44A EXR file can cause an out-of-bounds write…
more
in any application that decodes it via exr_decoding_run(). Consequences range from immediate crash (most likely) to corruption of adjacent heap allocations (layout-dependent). This issue has been patched in version 3.4.8.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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 directly require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
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.
Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.