CVE-2019-5059
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 · uneditedAn exploitable code execution vulnerability exists in the XPM image rendering functionality of SDL2_image 2.0.4. A specially crafted XPM image can cause an integer overflow, allocating too small of a buffer. This buffer can then be written out of bounds resulting in a heap overflow, ultimately ending in code execution. An attacker can display a specially crafted image to trigger this vulnerability.
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 confidenceAn integer overflow vulnerability exists in SDL2_image 2.0.4's XPM image parsing. When processing a specially crafted XPM image, the parser miscalculates buffer sizes due to integer overflow, allocating a buffer smaller than required. Subsequent writes to this undersized buffer overflow the heap, potentially allowing 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= 2.0.4= 15.0= 15.0= 15.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Check installed SDL2_image versionRun 'pkg-config --modversion SDL2_image' or check your package manager for the installed libsdl2-image version. On Linux: 'rpm -q libsdl2-image' or 'dpkg -l libsdl2-image'. On Windows, check the DLL version property.Affected if Version equals 2.0.4 exactly
-
Confirm XPM image support is enabledVerify that SDL2_image was built with XPM support enabled. Check compilation flags or inspect the binary for XPM-related symbols. Look for 'IMG_LoadXPM_RW' or similar functions in the library.Affected if XPM support is compiled into the library and the application uses IMG_Load or IMG_Load_RW to process XPM files
-
Identify applications using SDL2_image to load imagesReview applications or services that link against libsdl2-image and process user-supplied or external image files. Check which image formats the application accepts.Affected if The application loads images from untrusted sources and XPM is among the supported formats
-
Audit for XPM files in processing pipelinesSearch for XPM files in your environment or logs indicating XPM image loading. Review application configurations for allowed image types.Affected if XPM images are processed by any application using the affected SDL2_image library
You are affected if SDL2_image version 2.0.4 is installed AND your application uses it to load XPM images from any source.
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 dataUpgrade SDL2_image to a patched version (2.0.5 or later). Until then, avoid loading XPM images from untrusted sources.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-5059 — 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-2019-5059 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