Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-6384 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Redhat Enterprise Linux. Its CVSS base score is 7.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 18th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) 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-2026-6384 is a buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) in the GIMP image editor, affecting its GIF image loading component, specifically the `ReadJeffsImage` function. Published on 2026-04-15, the flaw enables an attacker to write beyond an allocated buffer when GIMP processes a specially crafted GIF file. This can result in denial of service or potentially arbitrary code execution, 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).
The vulnerability can be exploited by a local attacker with low privileges who tricks a user into opening a malicious GIF file in GIMP, as it requires user interaction and local access. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to achieve high-impact effects on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, such as crashing the application or executing arbitrary code in the context of the user running GIMP.
Red Hat advisories provide details on this issue; see https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-6384 for security guidance and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2458749 for the related bug report.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-23096
Vulnerability Data
A flaw was found in gimp. This buffer overflow vulnerability in the GIF image loading component's `ReadJeffsImage` function allows an attacker to write beyond an allocated buffer by processing a specially crafted GIF file. This can lead to a denial…
more
of service or potentially arbitrary code execution.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.