CVE-2023-5349VulnerabilityPublished 30 Oct 2023Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-5349: rmagick · Memory Leak

Affects rmagickSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 51% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 Oct 2023
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

Organizations should proactively monitor memory usage of applications using rmagick and implement resource limits at the process or container level to prevent uncontrolled memory consumption. Applying rate limiting or input validation on image processing endpoints can reduce the risk of exploitation by limiting the volume and size of images processed. It is critical to track vendor advisories and update rmagick to patched versions as soon as they become available. In the absence of a patch, consider isolating image processing workloads in separate environments with strict memory quotas and restart policies to contain potential DoS effects. Reviewing application code for proper memory management and avoiding unnecessary image processing can also reduce exposure. Additionally, implementing robust logging and alerting on abnormal memory usage patterns will enable early detection of exploitation attempts. Network-level protections such as Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) can help block suspicious traffic targeting image processing endpoints. Finally, educating developers about secure usage of rmagick and ImageMagick can prevent inadvertent introduction of similar issues.

Description

A memory leak flaw was found in ruby-magick, an interface between Ruby and ImageMagick. This issue can lead to a denial of service (DOS) by memory exhaustion.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to service availability. Enterprises and service providers using Ruby applications with rmagick for image processing may experience application crashes or degraded performance due to memory exhaustion, leading to denial of service. This can disrupt business operations, especially for web services handling high volumes of image uploads or transformations. The impact is more pronounced in cloud or containerized environments where memory limits are strictly enforced, potentially causing container restarts or service downtime. While confidentiality and integrity are not directly affected, the availability impact can lead to reputational damage and financial losses. Organizations in sectors such as media, e-commerce, and software development that rely on Ruby and ImageMagick integrations are particularly vulnerable. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop exploits given the low complexity of exploitation. European regulatory frameworks emphasizing service availability and operational resilience (e.g., NIS Directive) increase the importance of timely mitigation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…