CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-45696

Heap-based Buffer Overflow

Published: Jun 18, 2026 | Modified: Oct 25, 2026
CVSS 3.x
6.5
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
7.1 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

OpenEXR is the reference implementation and specification for the EXR image format, widely used in the motion picture industry. In versions 3.4.0 through 3.4.11, the HTJ2K (High-Throughput JPEG 2000) decoder, ht_undo_impl() in OpenEXRCore is vulnerable to a heap-buffer-overflow READ. The ht_undo_imp function copies decoded pixels out of a per-line OpenJPH buffer using the EXR channels declared width as the iteration count. The codestream embedded in the EXR chunk can declare different (smaller) tile/line dimensions than the EXR header advertises, but ht_undo_impl() does not validate this — it pulls width 32-bit samples from cur_line->i32[] without checking the OpenJPH line buffers actual length. A crafted EXR file produces a 4-byte heap-buffer-overflow READ immediately after a buffer allocated by ojph::local::codestream::finalize_alloc(). The bug is reachable through the standard scanline-decode entry point used by every consumer of exr_decoding_run/Imf::checkOpenEXRFile, including thumbnailers, asset pipelines, and the exrcheck utility — i.e. any application that opens untrusted EXR files. The result is a deterministic crash (DoS) and potential adjacent-heap leak. This issue has been fixed in version 3.4.12.

Weakness

A heap overflow condition is a buffer overflow, where the buffer that can be overwritten is allocated in the heap portion of memory, generally meaning that the buffer was allocated using a routine such as malloc().

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
OpenexrOpenexr3.4.0 (including)3.4.12 (excluding)
OpenexrUbuntuquesting*

Potential Mitigations

  • 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.
  • 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].

References