CVE Intelligence
Low Memory corruption

CVE-2026-84449 — libheif hOp_RGB24_32_to_YCbCr Memory Access Error / SEGV

libheif is a HEIF and AVIF file format decoder and encoder. Prior to 1.19.6, Op_RGB24_32_to_YCbCr::convert_colorspace() stores image-plane strides in an integer width that can overflow for extremely large RGB images created through heif_image_create() and heif_image_add_plane(). The resulting wrapped stride causes the conversion loop in libheif/color-conversion/rgb2yuv.cc to compute an invalid input pointer and read beyond the allocated interleaved plane while heif_context_encode_image() performs RGB-to-YCbCr conversion. This can crash the encoding process. This issue is fixed in version 1.19.6.

Published Sep 18, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

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
  • 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
—
No EPSS score.
Affects
Strukturag
Libheif
CVSS base
3.7
Low · 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
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
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.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Strukturag Libheif).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. 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.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Strukturag Libheif version < 1.19.6 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
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
Low

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
3.7 CVSS 3.1 Low 2.2 1.4 security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
3.7 CVSS 3.1 Low — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

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

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Correlate service crashes/restarts with inbound traffic; repeated crashes may indicate attempts.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSendpoint telemetry (EDR)crash dumps

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · strukturag/libheif
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 3.7
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Sep 18, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Strukturag
every CVE for this vendor
CWE-125
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • Medium CVE-2026-84451 libheif: Incomplete fix for CVE-2026-62292 leaves libheif vulnerable to an out-of-bounds read 27d
  • Medium CVE-2026-84450 libheif: `clap` + oversized `ispe` aborts on an assert in `Fraction::Fraction` (incomplete fix for CVE-2026-62289) 27d
  • High CVE-2026-84444 libheif uncompressed tiled image encoding allows out-of-bounds write 27d
  • High CVE-2026-84447 libheif: Derived-image indirect reference chains and tiled offsets bypass decode caching and MemoryHandle limits, causing CPU/memory amplification DoS 27d
  • Medium CVE-2026-84448 libheif: Heap out-of-bounds read in libheif inline-mask region API (heif_region_item_add_region_inline_mask_data / heif_region_get_mask_image) 27d
  • High CVE-2026-84446 libheif: Sequence decode timing-table initialization allows non-terminating loops and unbounded memory, bypassing max_sequence_frames 27d

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 FIRST EPSS score.
  • 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-2026-84449 is "libheif hOp_RGB24_32_to_YCbCr Memory Access Error / SEGV", rated Low. It affects Libheif (Strukturag); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 3.7 describes technical severity. 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.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.