VulnerabilityPublished 22 Feb 2026Updated 23 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-2913: libvips · Heap-based Buffer Overflow

Affects libvipsSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 2.0 Low.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.0Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable system is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 22 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
libvips	Affected 8.0 – 8.19.0 20 affected builds	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (1)

cpe:2.3:a:libvips:libvips:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-2913, organizations should apply the official patch identified by commit a56feecbe9ed66521d9647ec9fbcd2546eccd7ee as soon as possible. Beyond patching, it is advisable to audit the use of libvips in environments to identify any workflows that process custom seekable sources larger than 4 GiB and assess their exposure. Restrict local access to trusted users only, as exploitation requires local presence. Implement monitoring for application crashes related to image processing tasks to detect potential exploitation attempts or stability issues. Where feasible, limit the size of input sources to below 4 GiB or validate input sizes before processing to reduce risk. Additionally, maintain up-to-date software inventories and ensure that libvips dependencies are regularly updated to incorporate security fixes.

Description

A vulnerability was determined in libvips up to 8.19.0. The affected element is the function vips_source_read_to_memory of the file libvips/iofuncs/source.c. This manipulation causes heap-based buffer overflow. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The attack's complexity is rated as high. The exploitability is described as difficult. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. Patch name: a56feecbe9ed66521d9647ec9fbcd2546eccd7ee. Applying a patch is the recommended action to fix this issue. The confirmation of the bugfix mentions: "[T]he impact of this is negligible, since this only affects custom seekable sources larger than 4 GiB (and the crash occurs in user code rather than libvips itself)."

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-2913 is a potential denial of service through application crashes when processing large custom seekable sources exceeding 4 GiB in size. Since the crash occurs in user code rather than libvips itself, the risk of remote code execution or privilege escalation is negligible. However, for organizations relying on libvips in critical image processing workflows, especially those handling very large images or custom data sources, this vulnerability could lead to instability or service interruptions. The requirement for local access and the high complexity of exploitation reduce the likelihood of widespread attacks. Nonetheless, unpatched systems could experience unexpected application failures, potentially affecting availability and operational continuity in environments where libvips is embedded in local processing pipelines or desktop applications.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…