Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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-2026-56374 is a medium-severity Out-of-bounds Read (CWE-125) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 4.8 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 5th 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 SI-3 (Malicious Code Protection) and SI-7 (Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-42260
Vulnerability Data
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-19 contains a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the FTXT encoder due to missing boundary checks when parsing ftxt:format. Remote attackers can trigger an out of bounds read by crafting malicious FTXT image files to cause denial of…
more
service or information disclosure.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Insufficient information to map techniques.CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SI-7 requires integrity verification of software, firmware, and information, directly blocking execution or processing of malicious FTXT image files that trigger the heap buffer overflow.
SI-3 mandates malicious code protection mechanisms that can detect and block crafted FTXT files containing the malformed format string before ImageMagick processes them.
SC-18 restricts mobile code and untrusted content handling, limiting the ability of remote attackers to supply malicious FTXT images that exploit the missing boundary checks.
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 such as bounds checking and memory-safe languages directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
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 and acceptance includes fuzzing and static analysis that detect out-of-bounds read defects before release.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Application security requirements include explicit bounds and memory-safety specifications that mitigate buffer over-reads.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require memory-safe design patterns and runtime protections against out-of-bounds access.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds-checked reads, eliminating CWE-125.