CVE-2021-22564
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 · uneditedFor certain valid JPEG XL images with a size slightly larger than an integer number of groups (256x256 pixels) when processing the groups out of order the decoder can perform an out of bounds copy of image pixels from an image buffer in the heap to another. This copy can occur when processing the right or bottom edges of the image, but only when groups are processed in certain order. Groups can be processed out of order in multi-threaded decoding environments with heavy thread load but also with images that contain the groups in an arbitrary order in the file. It is recommended to upgrade past 0.6.0 or patch with https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/pull/775
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 analysisData overflows a buffer allocated on the heap, corrupting neighbouring heap structures and allocator metadata that a patient attacker can groom into control of execution. It is subtler than a stack overflow but just as dangerous. The fix is validating lengths before every write and using safe allocators and bounded operations.
General guidance for the heap-based buffer overflow class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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<= 0.6.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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.
dbcve · scopedany version > 0.6.0
- 1. Locate the libjxl library in your project dependencies (check package.json, requirements.txt, Cargo.toml, or similar dependency file)
- 2. Identify the current version of libjxl (should be <= 0.6.0 based on the vulnerability)
- 3. Update the dependency to use a version greater than 0.6.0 (e.g., change version to ^0.6.1 or latest available)
- 4. Run dependency update command appropriate to your package manager (npm update, pip install --upgrade, cargo update, etc.)
- 5. Rebuild and test your application to verify the library functions correctly with the new version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-22564 — 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-2021-22564 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