CVE-2025-53619
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 out-of-bounds read vulnerability exists in the JPEGBITSCodec::InternalCode functionality of Grassroot DICOM 3.024. A specially crafted DICOM file can lead to an information leak. An attacker can provide a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.The function `null_convert` is called based of the value of the malicious DICOM file specifying the intended interpretation of the image pixel data
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 · moderate confidenceAn out-of-bounds read vulnerability exists in Grassroot DICOM 3.024's JPEGBITSCodec::InternalCode function. The vulnerability is triggered when a malicious DICOM file contains specific values that cause the program to call the `null_convert` function inappropriately, leading to an information leak via memory disclosure.
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= 3.0.24CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Identify Grassroots DICOM versionRun 'gdcmdump --version' or check the library file version using 'strings' or file metadata on the gdcm library (typically libgdcmCommon.so or gdcm.dll)Affected if The version returned is 3.0.24 exactly
-
Locate the gdcm binary or libraryFind the installed gdcm executable or shared library using 'which gdcm' or searching for libgdcm* files in common paths like /usr/lib or C:\Program FilesAffected if The gdcm library version cannot be determined or shows 3.0.24
-
Check if JPEG codec is availableExamine whether the gdcm installation includes JPEG decoding support by checking for the presence of JPEG-related codec files or running 'gdcmdump --help' to list supported transfer syntaxesAffected if JPEG decoding is enabled and the version is 3.0.24
-
Verify DICOM file processing capabilityTest if gdcm can process DICOM files by running 'gdcmimg -i test.dcm' on any sample DICOM file, or check if the application links against libgdcmAffected if The application uses gdcm version 3.0.24 to process DICOM files
A user is affected if they have Malaterre Grassroots DICOM version 3.0.24 installed and process DICOM files using the JPEG codec functionality.
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 dataUsers should avoid processing untrusted DICOM files until a patch is available. Implement strict validation of the image pixel data interpretation value in DICOM files before passing it to the `null_convert` function, and add bounds checking in JPEGBITSCodec::InternalCode to prevent out-of-bounds memory reads.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,136.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-53619 — 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-2025-53619 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