High Memory corruption exploit reference

CVE-2026-44637 — libsixel: integer overflow in parser

libsixel is a SIXEL encoder/decoder implementation derived from kmiya's sixel. From to 1.8.7-r1, a signed integer overflow in the SIXEL parser's image-buffer doubling loop can lead to an out-of-bounds heap write in sixel_decode_raw_impl. context->pos_x grows by repeat_count on every sixel character with no upper bound check. Once pos_x approaches INT_MAX, the expression "pos_x + repeat_count" used to size the image buffer overflows signed int. Depending on how the overflow wraps, the resize check that should reject oversized buffers can be bypassed, after which a subsequent write computes a large attacker-influenced offset into image->data and writes past the allocation. Reachable from any caller that decodes attacker-supplied SIXEL data, including img2sixel. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.8.7-r2.

Published May 14, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Low

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.

How the score was calculated

EPSS 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+1
Technical severity (high)+6
CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation

Not confirmed

Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.

EPSS FIRST

0.17%

ahead of 6% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026

Affects

Saitoha

Libsixel

CVSS base

7.1

High · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation

Proof of concept

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script the kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Saitoha Libsixel).
No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (memory corruption), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status	Source
Saitoha	Libsixel	≥ 0.11.0 and < 1.8.7-r2	Vulnerable	NIST National Vulnerability Database
Saitoha	Libsixel	version >= 0.11.0, < 1.8.7-r2	Vulnerable	CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector

Local

Attack complexity

Low

Privileges required

None

User interaction

Required

Scope

Unchanged

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

High

Availability

High

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Scored by
7.1	CVSS 3.1	High	1.8	5.2	security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.1	CVSS 3.1	High	—	—	GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds Write

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.17%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

Local/physical vector: focus on endpoint telemetry (EDR) from affected hosts.
Correlate service crashes/restarts with inbound traffic; repeated crashes may indicate attempts.

endpoint telemetry (EDR)crash dumps

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

2026
Affected products added · saitoha/libsixel
Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
SSVC assessment updated
Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
Record published
Oct 13, 2026
CVSS changed · 7.1
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Source status changed · → Analyzed
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Record created in this database
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVE published
May 14, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

1 on the record

github.com/saitoha/libsixel/security/advisories/GHSA-9jm7-77gr-qghv
Exploit, Vendor Advisory, x_refsource_CONFIRM, NIST National Vulnerability Database

Elsewhere on this site

Saitoha
every CVE for this vendor

Memory corruption
same class

CWE-787
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

Medium CVE-2026-110601 libsixel before 1.8.7-r1 and 1.9.0 through 1.10.5 Heap Out-of-Bounds Write via GIF 1d
High CVE-2026-44636 libsixel: integer overflow in encoder May 14, 2026
Low CVE-2026-44638 libsixel: NULL pointer dereference May 14, 2026
High CVE-2026-33021 libsixel: Use-after-free in sixel_encoder_encode_bytes() Apr 14, 2026
High CVE-2026-33023 libsixel: Use-after-free in load_with_gdkpixbuf() Apr 14, 2026
High CVE-2026-33018 libsixel: Use-After-Free in load_gif() Apr 14, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-44637 is "libsixel: integer overflow in parser", rated High. It affects Libsixel (Saitoha); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.1 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.17% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.