CVE-2026-0797VulnerabilityPublished 23 Mar 2026Updated 27 Jun 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: gimp:2.8 security update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 1.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 70% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 23 Mar 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 2026-10-25.

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

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated GIMP 2.8 packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 that address these vulnerabilities. Users should apply the security update as detailed in Red Hat advisory RHSA-2026:5437. For update instructions, refer to https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are indicated by the vendor beyond applying the official update.

Description

Multiple remote code execution vulnerabilities have been identified in GIMP 2.8 related to parsing of PGM, XWD, and ICO image files. These vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code remotely by exploiting uninitialized memory, out-of-bounds writes, or parsing flaws. Red Hat has issued an important security update for GIMP 2.8 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 to address these issues. The update mitigates the risks by fixing the underlying parsing vulnerabilities. Users of affected Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 variants should apply the update as recommended by Red Hat.

Impact

Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected systems via specially crafted image files. This poses a high security risk as it may lead to full system compromise. The vulnerabilities affect the GIMP 2.8 package on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 variants. No known exploits in the wild have been reported at this time.

Summary

The GIMP image manipulation program contains multiple remote code execution vulnerabilities due to improper handling of image file formats. Specifically, CVE-2026-2044 involves uninitialized memory usage in PGM file parsing, CVE-2026-2045 and CVE-2026-2048 involve out-of-bounds writes and parsing issues in XWD file parsing, and CVE-2026-0797 involves a vulnerability in ICO file parsing. These vulnerabilities could be exploited to execute arbitrary code remotely. Red Hat Product Security has released an important security advisory (RHSA-2026:5437) providing updated GIMP 2.8 packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 to remediate these issues.

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-908Use of Uninitialized Resource (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product uses or accesses a resource that has not been initialized.
Implementation
Explicitly initialize the resource before use. If this is performed through an API function or standard procedure, follow all required steps.
Implementation
Pay close attention to complex conditionals that affect initialization, since some branches might not perform the initialization.
Implementation
Avoid race conditions (CWE-362) during initialization routines.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended 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
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Jun 2026, 22:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-120, CWE-908, CWE-787

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats