Skip to content

GHSA-v9pv-5gc8-w2m6 BIT-pillow-2026-96639 CVE-2026-96639 PYSEC-2026-4339

Pillow multi-frame loaders can reuse stale native image storage after mode transitions

Critical PyPI
Severity
9.8 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.66%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 51.54% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read
CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write
Fix
13.0.0
Upgrade pillow to this version or later

Description

Summary

Pillow multi-frame image loaders can retain native ImagingCore storage allocated for one frame while changing the Python-side image mode and decoder tiles for a later frame.

If frame 0 allocates storage for a narrow mode such as L, and a later frame of the same dimensions switches to a wider mode such as RGB or CMYK, Pillow may decode wider pixels into the stale narrow native buffer. This causes native out-of-bounds writes and process crashes. In the MPO/JPEG path, I also demonstrated command execution in matching Python/Pillow runtime profiles through Pillow's documented ImageSequence.Iterator + frame.load() path.

Details

The root cause appears to be that ImageFile.load_prepare() only reallocates native storage when _im is None. It does not verify that the retained native ImagingCore storage still matches self.mode and self.size.

Several multi-frame seek() / _open() paths can update self._mode and decoder tiles for a later frame without invalidating _im. The decoder then writes or reads according to the new frame mode while the native storage still belongs to the old frame mode.

Verified affected surfaces:

  1. PSD

    PsdImageFile.seek() can switch from grayscale/native L storage to RGB layer decoding while retaining _im. This produces attacker-controlled native out-of-bounds writes and reliable crashes.

  2. MPO/JPEG

    A crafted two-frame MPO can make frame 0 allocate L storage, then make frame 1 decode CMYK / RGB data into the retained L storage. The documented ImageSequence.Iterator path reaches this with frame.load(). Verified native memory corruption, crash, over-read behavior, and scoped harmless-marker command execution on Pillow 12.3.0.

  3. DCX

    DcxImageFile.seek() calls PcxImageFile._open(), which changes mode/tile state without a native-storage mode guard. A crafted DCX with L then RGB PCX frames produces retained-storage mismatch and crash.

  4. MIC

    MIC can call TiffImageFile._open() directly and bypass TIFF's normal guarded seek() behavior. With a NextIFD-based reachable frame transition, this produces retained-storage mismatch and crash.

TIFF appears to be a useful positive control because its seek() path checks both size and mode before reusing storage.

Impact

  • process crash / denial of service,
  • native out-of-bounds write,
  • native over-read in the MPO path.

Stronger proven impact:

  • command execution in matching Python/Pillow runtime profiles through the MPO/JPEG path.

Server-side deployment impact:

  • Create a local vulnerable web upload service that accepts an unauthenticated MPO upload and automatically processes it with Pillow.
  • The attack is one HTTP request and requires no user interaction after upload.
  • The fixed harmless command-output marker succeeded 10/10 times.
  • The _im=None control was clean 10/10 times.

Reproduction Evidence

Tested version:

Pillow 12.3.0

MPO terminal proof environments:

Python 3.12.3 + Pillow 12.3.0, clean PyPI environment:
marker 10/10, control 0/10

Python 3.13.14 + Pillow 12.3.0, prepared profile:
marker 10/10, control 0/10

Server-side web-upload proof:

control 1..10: MARKER_MISSING
control_summary ok 0 missing 10 /10

vulnerable 1..10: MARKER_OK marker_output <server-user>
vulnerable_summary ok 10 missing 0 /10

The terminal proof uses a fixed harmless marker command only. It does not use a reverse shell, persistence, data exfiltration, or arbitrary attacker-selected commands.

I can provide the following private artifacts to maintainers:

  • minimal crash fixtures for PSD, MPO, DCX, and MIC,
  • non-weaponized MPO marker PoC,
  • local vulnerable web upload demo,
  • gdb/GEF geometry receipts,
  • control-run logs,
  • proposed regression-test shape.

Minimal Reproduction Shape

For the MPO path, the vulnerable consumer shape is:

from io import BytesIO
from PIL import Image, ImageSequence

source = BytesIO(open(path, "rb").read())
image = Image.open(source)
iterator = ImageSequence.Iterator(image)
next(iterator).load()
next(iterator).load()

The crafted image shape is:

frame 0: mode L, dimensions W x H
frame 1: same W x H, wider mode such as CMYK

Frame 0 allocates native L storage. Frame 1 changes the logical mode and decoder state but can reuse the old native storage. The frame 1 decoder writes using the wider mode into the narrow storage.

Suggested Fix Direction

Before reusing native ImagingCore storage, Pillow should verify that the retained storage is compatible with the current logical image mode and size.

A central guard in ImageFile.load_prepare() could compare native storage mode/size against self.mode / self.size and allocate fresh storage when they differ. Alternatively, every mode-changing seek() / _open() path should explicitly invalidate _im before decoding.

Caution: TIFF has specialized tile-size behavior and already has a mode/size guard, so a central fix should avoid regressing TIFF tile-buffer handling.

Credit

Rotem Kama

Methodology Note

AI-assisted analysis was used for discovery and verification support. Claims in this report are limited to the local artifacts, controls, and command outputs described above.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
pillow
>= 11.0.0, < 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 9.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.
  • Architecture and Design: Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.

CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
  • 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. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: 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 checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
  • Implementation: Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory: Double check that the buffer is as large as specified. When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string. Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer in a loop and make sure there is no danger of writing past the allocated space. If necessary, truncate all input strings to a reasonable length before passing them to the copy and concatenation functions.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking. For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
  • Operation: Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment. For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
  • Implementation: Replace unbounded copy functions with analogous functions that support length arguments, such as strcpy with strncpy. Create these if they are not available.

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