CVE-2026-4150VulnerabilityPublished 14 May 2026Updated 2 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: gimp:2.8 security update

Affects Red Hat gimp:2.8Source GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 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 14 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 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
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=2.8.0 <=2.8.22 Red Hat Red Hat Enterprise Linux Red Hat Enterprise Linux AppStream (v. 8) src pygtk2-0:2.24.0-25.module+el8.9.0+21228+8e80d31d.src::gimp:2.8	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released an important security update for GIMP 2.8 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 that addresses these vulnerabilities. Users should apply the update as described in Red Hat advisory RHSA-2026:17533 and the referenced article https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the official update.

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: 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 lead to memory disclosure, denial of service, or arbitrary and remote code execution on affected systems running GIMP 2.8. This could compromise system confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Summary

The GIMP image manipulation program version 2.8 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 contains multiple vulnerabilities: CVE-2026-4887 allows memory disclosure and denial of service through crafted PCX images; CVE-2026-4154 enables remote code execution via an integer overflow in XPM file parsing; CVE-2026-4150 permits arbitrary code execution through specially crafted PSD files; and CVE-2026-4153 allows remote code execution via PSP file parsing. These vulnerabilities have been addressed in an update provided by Red Hat as per advisory RHSA-2026:17533.

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-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-120, CWE-193

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats