CVE-2026-4150VulnerabilityPublished 19 May 2026Updated 2 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: gimp security update

Affects Red Hat gimpSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

Severity

High

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 54% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 May 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 30 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
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected Red Hat Red Hat Enterprise Linux Red Hat Enterprise Linux AppStream (v. 9) x86_64 gimp-2:3.0.4-4.el9_8.4.x86_64	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat has issued an official security update for GIMP (version 3.0.4-4.el9_8.4) that addresses all listed vulnerabilities. Users of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 should apply this update promptly following Red Hat's guidance at https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are required beyond applying the official patch.

Description

The GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) is an image composition and editing program. GIMP provides a large image manipulation toolbox, including channel operations and layers, effects, sub-pixel imaging and anti-aliasing, and conversions, all with multi-level undo. Security Fix(es): * gimp: GIMP:Memory disclosure and denial of service via specially crafted PCX image (CVE-2026-4887) * gimp: GIMP: Remote Code Execution via XPM File Parsing Integer Overflow (CVE-2026-4154) * gimp: GIMP: Remote Code Execution via ANI File Parsing Integer Overflow (CVE-2026-4151) * gimp: GIMP: Remote Code Execution via malicious JP2 file parsing (CVE-2026-4152) * GIMP: GIMP: Arbitrary code execution via specially crafted PSD file (CVE-2026-4150) * gimp: GIMP: Remote Code Execution via PSP file parsing (CVE-2026-4153) For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.

Reports on CVE-2026-4150

ZDI-26-217: GIMP PSD File Parsing Integer Overflow Remote Code Execution VulnerabilityZero Day Initiative2026-03-19

Impact

Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code remotely, disclose memory contents, or cause denial of service on affected systems running vulnerable versions of GIMP. This poses a significant risk to system confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Summary

This Red Hat security advisory addresses several vulnerabilities in GIMP, an image editing program, that could lead to memory disclosure, denial of service, and remote code execution. The flaws arise from improper handling of specially crafted image files in multiple formats (PCX, XPM, ANI, JP2, PSD, PSP), including integer overflows during file parsing. The advisory covers six CVEs (CVE-2026-4150, CVE-2026-4151, CVE-2026-4152, CVE-2026-4153, CVE-2026-4154, CVE-2026-4887) and provides updated GIMP packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 to remediate these issues.

CWE-190Integer Overflow or Wraparound (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.
Requirements
Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Forced Integer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-131Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not correctly calculate the size to be used when allocating a buffer.
Implementation
When allocating a buffer for the purpose of transforming, converting, or encoding an input, allocate enough memory to handle the largest possible encoding. For example, in a routine that converts "&" characters to "&" for HTML entity encoding, the output buffer needs to be at least 5 times as large as the input…
Implementation
Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles…
Implementation · Input Validation
Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range.
Attack patterns
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-120Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input (Classic Buffer Overflow) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #11
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
MIME Conversion (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-193Off-by-one Error (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
A product calculates or uses an incorrect maximum or minimum value that is 1 more, or 1 less, than the correct value.
Implementation
When copying character arrays or using character manipulation methods, the correct size parameter must be used to account for the null terminator that needs to be added at the end of the array.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

Reports on CVE-2026-4150

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 13 Jul 2026, 10:51 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-190, CWE-131, CWE-120 +1

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats