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 an updated gimp:2.8 module package for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 AUS that addresses these vulnerabilities. Users should apply the security update as described in the Red Hat advisory RHSA-2026:5435 and the referenced article https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258 to remediate these issues. No additional mitigation actions are indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

Multiple remote code execution vulnerabilities have been identified in GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) related to parsing of PGM, XWD, and ICO image files. These vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code on affected systems. Red Hat has issued an important security update for the gimp:2.8 module in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Advanced Update Support to address these issues.

Impact

Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected systems by crafting malicious image files (PGM, XWD, ICO) that are processed by GIMP. This could lead to full system compromise depending on the privileges of the GIMP process. The advisory rates the security impact as Important, indicating significant risk if unpatched.

Summary

The Red Hat security advisory RHSA-2026:5435 addresses four remote code execution vulnerabilities in GIMP 2.8, specifically involving uninitialized memory usage in PGM file parsing (CVE-2026-2044), out-of-bounds write in XWD file parsing (CVE-2026-2045), a vulnerability in ICO file parsing (CVE-2026-0797), and another XWD file parsing vulnerability (CVE-2026-2048). These vulnerabilities are rated with a security impact of Important by Red Hat. The advisory provides updated packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 AUS to remediate these issues. No CVSS scores are provided in the advisory, but the severity is assessed as high in the input data. The vendor advisory directs users to apply the update to mitigate these remote code execution risks.

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