CVE-2026-25965
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 · uneditedImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to versions 7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40, ImageMagick’s path security policy is enforced on the raw filename string before the filesystem resolves it. As a result, a policy rule such as /etc/* can be bypassed by a path traversal. The OS resolves the traversal and opens the sensitive file, but the policy matcher only sees the unnormalized path and therefore allows the read. This enables local file disclosure (LFI) even when policy-secure.xml is applied. Actions to prevent reading from files have been taken in versions .7.1.2-15 and 6.9.13-40 But it make sure writing is also not possible the following should be added to one's policy. This will also be included in ImageMagick's more secure policies by default.
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 confidenceImageMagick's security policy enforcement checks the raw filename string before filesystem normalization, allowing path traversal (e.g., /etc/../../etc/passwd) to bypass policy rules like /etc/*. This enables local file disclosure even when policy-secure.xml is applied.
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< 6.9.13-40>= 7.0.0-0, < 7.1.2-15CVSS 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
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Determine installed ImageMagick versionRun 'convert -version' (ImageMagick 6) or 'magick -version' (ImageMagick 7) and note the version number displayed in the output.Affected if The version is below 6.9.13-40, or is 7.0.0-0 through 7.1.2-14 inclusive.
-
Locate the security policy fileCheck for policy.xml or policy-secure.xml in /etc/ImageMagick-6/, /etc/ImageMagick-7/, or the directory indicated by the 'MAGICK_CONFIGURE_PATH' environment variable.Affected if A security policy file exists and is loaded by ImageMagick.
-
Verify policy contains path restrictionsOpen the policy file and look for <policy> entries with domain="resource" and rights="read", particularly rules restricting paths like /etc/, /var/, or other sensitive directories.Affected if The policy contains read restrictions on paths like /etc/* but the version is vulnerable.
-
Confirm path normalization behaviorTest by attempting to read a file outside a restricted path using path traversal (e.g., ../../../etc/passwd) through an ImageMagick operation; observe whether the file is accessible despite policy restrictions.Affected if A file outside the restricted path is readable via path traversal when the policy should block it, and the version is in the affected range.
You are affected if ImageMagick version is below 6.9.13-40 or between 7.0.0-0 and 7.1.2-14 inclusive, and a security policy with path restrictions is in use.
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.
dbcve · scoped6.9.13-407.1.2-15
Upgrade to ImageMagick versions 7.1.2-15 or 6.9.13-40 or later, and add policy restrictions to prevent both reading and writing to sensitive paths.
7.1.2-15 (for 7.x) or 6.9.13-40 (for 6.x)
- Upgrade ImageMagick to version 7.1.2-15 or later if using the 7.x line
- Upgrade ImageMagick to version 6.9.13-40 or later if using the 6.x line
- Optionally, add the following policy entries to your policy XML to prevent both read and write operations on sensitive paths: <policy domain="path" rights="none" pattern="/etc/*"/> and <policy domain="path" rights="none" pattern="/proc/*"/>
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-25965 — 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-2026-25965 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