CVE-2026-4367
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 libXpm. A local user with low privileges could exploit an Out-of-Bounds Read vulnerability in the `xpmNextWord()` function by processing a specially crafted or very small XPM (X PixMap) image file. This improper validation of file boundaries can cause an internal pointer to read beyond the file's end, leading to application crashes and Denial of Service conditions.
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 confidencelibXpm contains an Out-of-Bounds Read vulnerability in the xpmNextWord() function due to improper validation of file boundaries. When processing specially crafted or very small XPM (X PixMap) image files, an internal pointer can read beyond the file's end, causing application crashes and denial of service.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
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 if libXpm library is installedSearch for libXpm shared library files on the system. On Linux/Unix systems, run: find /usr -name 'libXpm*' 2>/dev/null or check package manager: dpkg -l | grep libxpm (Debian) or rpm -qa | grep libXpm (RHEL)Affected if libXpm library files are present on the system
-
Determine installed libXpm versionUse the package manager to query the installed version: dpkg -s libxpm-dev or rpm -qi libXpm, or examine the library file directly: ls -la /usr/lib/*/libXpm* and check for version symbols using: objdump -p /usr/lib/$(uname -m)-linux-gnu/libXpm.so.* | grep VERSIONAffected if The installed version is lower than the patched version released for CVE-2026-4367
-
Identify applications using libXpmSearch for binaries or applications that link to libXpm: ldd $(which <application>) | grep libXpm or use: find /usr/bin /usr/sbin -type f -exec sh -c 'ldd "$1" 2>/dev/null | grep -q libXpm && echo "$1"' _ {} \;Affected if Any application is linked against libXpm and processes XPM image files as part of normal operation
-
Verify XPM file processing capabilityReview application documentation or source code to confirm whether the identified applications accept or process XPM image files as input. Check for XPM-related configuration or file type handlers.Affected if Applications process XPM files as part of their functionality, enabling the vulnerable code path in xpmNextWord()
The environment is affected if libXpm is installed and any application linked against it processes XPM image files, with the installed version being older than the patched release for CVE-2026-4367.
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 available patches for libXpm. Until a patch is available, validate XPM files before processing and consider restricting processing to trusted files only.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,648.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-4367 — 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-2026-4367 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