CVE-2026-21691VulnerabilityPublished 7 Jan 2026

CVE-2026-21691: InternationalColorConsortium iccDEV · Improper Input Validation

Affects InternationalColorConsortium iccDEVSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 2.3.1.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.3.1.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 7 Jan 2026
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

Upgrade iccDEV and internationalcolorconsortium/iccDEV to 2.3.1.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
InternationalColorConsortiumiccDEV	Affected <2.3.1.2	Fixed in 2.3.1.2
GitHubinternationalcolorconsortium/iccDEV`pkg:github/internationalcolorconsortium/iccDEV`Other threats	Affected <2.3.1.2	Fixed in 2.3.1.2

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately update any iccDEV library instances to version 2.3.1.2 or later to apply the official patch. Since no workarounds exist, patching is the primary mitigation. Additionally, organizations should implement strict validation and sanitization of ICC profiles before processing, potentially using sandboxed environments to isolate profile handling. User education to avoid opening untrusted ICC profiles can reduce exploitation risk. Monitoring for anomalous crashes or behavior in applications processing ICC profiles may help detect exploitation attempts. Incorporating ICC profile scanning into security gateways or endpoint protection solutions could prevent malicious profiles from reaching vulnerable systems. For software developers, adopting secure coding practices around type handling and input validation in color management modules is recommended to prevent similar issues.

Description

iccDEV provides a set of libraries and tools that allow for the interaction, manipulation, and application of International Color Consortium (ICC) color management profiles. Versions prior to 2.3.1.2 have a Type Confusion vulnerability in `CIccTag:IsTypeCompressed()`. This vulnerability affects users of the iccDEV library who process ICC color profiles. Version 2.3.1.2 contains a patch. No known workarounds are available.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2026-21691 depends on their reliance on iccDEV for ICC profile processing. Industries such as digital media production, professional printing, graphic design, and software development that incorporate color management workflows could face risks of application instability, data integrity issues, or denial of service if malicious ICC profiles are processed. This could disrupt production pipelines, degrade output quality, or cause downtime in critical imaging systems. Since exploitation requires user interaction, phishing or social engineering could be vectors to deliver malicious profiles. The vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality but can affect system reliability and data integrity. Organizations with automated or large-scale ICC profile processing are at higher risk. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate threat but patching is essential to prevent future attacks. The medium severity indicates moderate risk but should not be underestimated in environments where color profile integrity is critical.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (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
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-140Improper Neutralization of Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes delimiters.
Implementation · Input Validation
Developers should anticipate that delimiters will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
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.
Implementation · Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-476NULL Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #13OWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
Implementation
For any pointers that could have been modified or provided from a function that can return NULL, check the pointer for NULL before use. When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the check, and unlock when it has finished.
Requirements
Select a programming language that is not susceptible to these issues.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is non-null before acting upon it.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-697Incorrect Comparison (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weakness
The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Double Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Flash Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-1025Comparison Using Wrong Factors (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The code performs a comparison between two entities, but the comparison examines the wrong factors or characteristics of the entities, which can lead to incorrect results and resultant weaknesses.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 14 Jan 2026, 23:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20, CWE-140, CWE-476 +2

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats