CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
mediumMemory Corruption

CVE-2026-78475

CVE-2026-78475 — Gimp: unbounded stack vla and 21-byte stack over-read in pix (esm) loader

A flaw was found in the file-pix (ESM) plugin in GIMP. When processing a specially crafted PIX image file, the plugin allocates a Variable-Length Array (VLA) on the stack without proper bounds checking, causing an unbounded stack allocation followed by a 21-byte stack over-read. This can result in a denial of service due to stack exhaustion and a limited information disclosure of stack memory contents into an intermediate file.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, Red Hat (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, Red Hat (VEX), SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

Red Hat

4 products listed

CVSS base

6.1

medium

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

Red Hat VEX · CVE-2026-78475

fixed0affected3not affected29

workaround: To mitigate this vulnerability, do not open PIX files from untrusted sources with GIMP.

none_available: Fix deferred

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

  • Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
  • Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
  • Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 6Patched
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 7Patched
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 8Patched
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 9Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

Low

Integrity

None

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Local

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

Required

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
6.1CVSS 3.1medium1.84.2NVD, Red Hat (CNA), GHSA, Red Hat (VEX)

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read

  • Read Memory
  • Bypass Protection Mechanism

Mitigation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an accept known good input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, boat may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as red or blue. Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-537 · Infiltration of Hardware Development EnvironmentCAPEC-540 · Overread Buffers

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

  1. 2026
  2. Added · CVSS 3.1 6.1 (AV:L)

    Aug 24, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Aug 24, 2026 · NVD

  4. Reported to Red Hat.

    Aug 24, 2026 · Red Hat

  5. Added · GHSA-gqxg-r7gf-m7m7 published (medium)

    Aug 24, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory

  6. CVE published by mitre

    Aug 24, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

  7. Reported · Made public.

    Jul 24, 2026 · Red Hat

Source activity

Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.

  • CVE modified by NIST, Modified, LinkAug 24, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

6 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-78475 is Gimp: unbounded stack vla and 21-byte stack over-read in pix (esm) loader, a medium vulnerability affecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 from Red Hat. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-78475. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-78475. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 6.1 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.