Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-48734 is a medium-severity Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Malicious Image (T1204.003); ranked at the 1th 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-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-36182
Vulnerability Data
ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to versions 6.9.13-49 and 7.1.2-24, a crafted MVG file could result in a stack overflow due to a missing depth or visited-set check. This issue has…
more
been patched in versions 6.9.13-49 and 7.1.2-24.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Crafted MVG image file triggers uncontrolled recursion (stack overflow) in ImageMagick, directly enabling malicious image delivery for client/server impact.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly addresses the CVE by requiring prompt application of the vendor patch that adds the missing recursion depth/visited-set checks.
Enforces validation of MVG file structure and recursion limits before ImageMagick processes untrusted input, blocking the uncontrolled recursion path.
Requires integrity verification of both the ImageMagick binary and input files, reducing the chance that a malicious MVG can be executed or that a vulnerable version remains in use.
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 prevent coding errors such as missing recursion limits or termination conditions.
Runtime monitoring of compute resources can detect excessive consumption caused by uncontrolled recursion.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record uncontrolled recursion flaws before deployment.
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.
Security testing in development can detect excessive recursion via static analysis or fuzzing.
Secure development life cycle requires controls that prevent uncontrolled recursion through design and code review.
Application security requirements can mandate recursion limits or stack-depth checks.
Secure system architecture principles include resource-management and input-validation rules that limit recursion.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit or constrain recursive constructs that could exhaust stack or memory.
Capacity management includes monitoring and limits that mitigate resource exhaustion from runaway recursion.