CVE-2010-1526
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedMultiple integer overflows in libgdiplus 2.6.7, as used in Mono, allow attackers to execute arbitrary code via (1) a crafted TIFF file, related to the gdip_load_tiff_image function in tiffcodec.c; (2) a crafted JPEG file, related to the gdip_load_jpeg_image_internal function in jpegcodec.c; or (3) a crafted BMP file, related to the gdip_read_bmp_image function in bmpcodec.c, leading to heap-based buffer overflows.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceInteger overflows in libgdiplus 2.6.7 image parsing functions (gdip_load_tiff_image, gdip_load_jpeg_image_internal, gdip_read_bmp_image) allow heap-based buffer overflows when processing crafted TIFF, JPEG, or BMP files, enabling arbitrary code execution.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 2.6.7CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if libgdiplus is installedSearch for libgdiplus on the system using commands like 'find /usr -name "libgdiplus*"' or check package managers (dpkg -l | grep libgdiplus, rpm -qa | grep libgdiplus)Affected if libgdiplus is not found on the system (not affected)
-
Determine the installed libgdiplus versionRun 'pkg-config --modversion libgdiplus' or check the library file version with 'strings /path/to/libgdiplus.so | grep -i version' or use 'ldd' on any binary that links to itAffected if The version reported is exactly 2.6.7 (affected)
-
Verify the vulnerable image parsing functions existInspect the libgdiplus binary for the vulnerable functions using 'nm /path/to/libgdiplus.so | grep -E "gdip_load_tiff_image|gdip_load_jpeg_image_internal|gdip_read_bmp_image"'Affected if These functions are present in the library (vulnerable code path exists)
-
Check for applications or services that use libgdiplusSearch for executables that link to libgdiplus using 'ldconfig -p | grep libgdiplus' or review application dependenciesAffected if Applications that process image files using libgdiplus are in use (potential attack surface)
-
Identify if untrusted image files can be processedReview application logs or file processing paths to determine if user-supplied or network-received TIFF, JPEG, or BMP files are processed by libgdiplus-based applicationsAffected if Untrusted image files can be loaded by libgdiplus-using applications (exploitable condition present)
The system is affected if libgdiplus version 2.6.7 is installed and any application uses it to process untrusted TIFF, JPEG, or BMP image files.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpdate libgdiplus to a patched version that implements proper integer overflow checks and bounds validation in image codec functions before memory allocation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-1526 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2010-1526 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data