Application crash via inconsistent pixel-buffer dimensions
Published Apr 14, 2021 · Updated Aug 4, 2024
Buffer overflow in Libsixel 1.8.6 allows attackers to crash calling applications through inconsistent pixel-buffer dimensions. sixel_encoder_encode_bytes processes supplied width, height, and RGBA format values without a buffer-length argument, causing normalization to read beyond a 4,096-byte input as though it held a 400-by-300 image. Reachability requires an application to expose this buffer-and-dimensions mismatch; the published reproducer demonstrates a process abort, not code execution.
Summary
What happened
Buffer overflow in Libsixel 1.8.6 allows attackers to crash calling applications through inconsistent pixel-buffer dimensions. sixel_encoder_encode_bytes processes supplied width, height, and RGBA format values without a buffer-length argument, causing normalization to read beyond a 4,096-byte input as though it held a 400-by-300 image. Reachability requires an application to expose this buffer-and-dimensions mismatch; the published reproducer demonstrates a process abort, not code execution.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2020-36120
- Published
- Apr 14, 2021
- Updated
- Aug 4, 2024
- Vendor
- Unknown vendor
- Product
- Unknown product
- Classifications
- CWE-120, T1499
- Attack vector
- Unavailable
- Privileges
- Unavailable
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Apr 14, 2021CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- Aug 4, 2024Record updatedLatest update available in the CVE record.
Exploitability
Present is not the same as exploitable
Compare your product and version with the public record. A matching version still requires validation against your environment.
Is a vulnerable build present?
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Affected products and versions are unavailable in this record.
Published CVSS scores
CVSS describes severity. EPSS estimates exploitation probability.
Attacks
What attackers are doing with it
Daily unique IPs observed by Shadowserver honeypots for known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs). Missing observations do not establish an absence of attacks.
Weakness, pattern, technique
Public exploit references
- sixel_encoder_encode_bytes AddressSanitizer reproducerproof of concept · demonstrated
Labels summarize the accepted research assessment. They do not indicate a test against your environment.
Technologies
Your stack
See the directory against your own environment.
Your stack
Check the software in your environment
Book a demo to see how Hinoki identifies affected software and validates exploitability in your environment.
Book a demo