CVE-2025-6035
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 · uneditedA flaw was found in GIMP. An integer overflow vulnerability exists in the GIMP "Despeckle" plug-in. The issue occurs due to unchecked multiplication of image dimensions, such as width, height, and bytes-per-pixel (img_bpp), which can result in allocating insufficient memory and subsequently performing out-of-bounds writes. This issue could lead to heap corruption, a potential denial of service (DoS), or arbitrary code execution in certain scenarios.
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 GIMP's Despeckle plug-in where multiplying image width × height × bytes-per-pixel without proper validation can cause insufficient memory allocation, leading to heap corruption and potentially 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= 2.8.0CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 GIMP versionRun 'gimp --version' in terminal or check your system's package manager for the installed GIMP package versionAffected if Version is 2.8.0 exactly
-
Verify Despeckle plug-in existsCheck for the despeckle plug-in file in GIMP's plug-ins directory, typically at /usr/lib/gimp/2.0/plug-ins/despeckle or ~/.gimp-2.8/plug-ins/despeckleAffected if The despeckle executable file is present in the plug-ins folder
-
Confirm plug-in is executableVerify the despeckle file has execute permissions (ls -l on the file shows -rwxr-xr-x or similar)Affected if The plug-in has execute permissions and can be loaded by GIMP
Your environment is affected if GIMP version 2.8.0 is installed and the Despeckle plug-in is present and executable, as the integer overflow occurs during Despeckle filter operation on any image.
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 dataApply the vendor patch for GIMP that adds proper integer overflow checks in the Despeckle plug-in memory allocation logic, or avoid processing very large images with the Despeckle filter until patched.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-6035 — 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-2025-6035 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