CVE-2025-66293VulnerabilityPublished 3 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-66293: pnggroup libpng · Out-of-bounds Read

Affects pnggroup libpngSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 1.6.52 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.6.52

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

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

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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Dec 2025
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 2026-10-25.

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

Upgrade pnggroup/libpng to 1.6.52.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubpnggroup/libpng`pkg:github/pnggroup/libpng`Other threats	Affected <1.6.52	Fixed in 1.6.52

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-66293 effectively, European organizations should: 1) Identify all software and systems that use libpng, including embedded libraries in applications, and verify their libpng version. 2) Prioritize upgrading libpng to version 1.6.52 or later across all affected systems and software dependencies. 3) For third-party applications that bundle libpng, coordinate with vendors to obtain patched versions or apply vendor-provided updates. 4) Implement strict input validation and sandboxing for image processing components to limit the impact of malformed PNG files. 5) Employ network and email filtering to block or quarantine suspicious PNG files from untrusted sources, reducing the risk of user interaction with malicious images. 6) Educate users about the risks of opening unsolicited or suspicious image files, especially in email attachments or downloads. 7) Monitor application logs and system behavior for crashes or anomalies related to image processing that could indicate exploitation attempts. 8) Consider deploying runtime protections such as memory safety tools or exploit mitigation technologies (e.g., ASLR, DEP) to reduce the impact of out-of-bounds reads. These steps go beyond generic patching by addressing detection, prevention, and user awareness.

Description

LIBPNG is a reference library for use in applications that read, create, and manipulate PNG (Portable Network Graphics) raster image files. Prior to 1.6.52, an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in libpng's simplified API allows reading up to 1012 bytes beyond the png_sRGB_base[512] array when processing valid palette PNG images with partial transparency and gamma correction. The PNG files that trigger this vulnerability are valid per the PNG specification; the bug is in libpng's internal state management. Upgrade to libpng 1.6.52 or later.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-66293 can be substantial, especially for those in industries that heavily rely on image processing, such as media, publishing, software development, and digital marketing. The vulnerability could be exploited to cause denial of service by crashing applications that process PNG images, disrupting business operations. Additionally, the out-of-bounds read may lead to partial information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data residing in memory adjacent to the png_sRGB_base array. This could have privacy and compliance implications under regulations like GDPR. Since libpng is embedded in many software products and libraries, including web browsers, image viewers, content management systems, and graphic design tools, the attack surface is broad. European organizations that automatically process user-uploaded images or receive images via email or web services are particularly vulnerable. The requirement for user interaction means phishing or social engineering could be used to deliver malicious PNG files. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk, but the high severity score and widespread use warrant proactive mitigation to avoid future exploitation.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
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.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Overread Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Dec 2025, 21:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats