strukturag libheif up to 1.23.0 Decoder libheif/context.cc HeifContext::get_track null pointer dereference
| CVSS Meta Temp Score | Current Exploit Price (≈) | CTI Interest Score |
|---|---|---|
| 4.7 | $0-$5k | 0.40 |
Summary
A vulnerability marked as problematic has been reported in strukturag libheif up to 1.23.0. This affects the function HeifContext::get_track of the file libheif/context.cc of the component Decoder. This manipulation causes null pointer dereference.
This vulnerability appears as CVE-2026-62377. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit.
Details
A vulnerability has been found in strukturag libheif up to 1.23.0 and classified as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is the function HeifContext::get_track of the file libheif/context.cc of the component Decoder. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a null pointer dereference vulnerability. The CWE definition for the vulnerability is CWE-476. A NULL pointer dereference occurs when the application dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid, but is NULL, typically causing a crash or exit. As an impact it is known to affect availability. The summary by CVE is:
libheif is a HEIF and AVIF file format decoder and encoder. In 1.23.0 and earlier, a crafted HEIF sequence accepted by heif_context_read_from_memory() can leave the context with no registered sequence tracks and crash when heif_context_get_track(ctx, 0) is called. HeifContext::get_track() in libheif/context.cc executes assert(has_sequence()) before its normal error handling, so assert-enabled builds abort instead of allowing the public wrapper in libheif/api/libheif/heif_sequences.cc to return null. In release builds, removing the assertion lets the track_id zero path dereference m_tracks.begin()->second on an empty map, which is undefined behavior and typically crashes. The issue is reachable through documented public APIs after parsing attacker-controlled bytes. This issue is fixed in version 1.23.1.
The advisory is shared at github.com. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-62377 since 07/14/2026. The exploitation appears to be easy. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploitation doesn't need any form of authentication. Technical details are known, but no exploit is available.
Upgrading to version 1.23.1 eliminates this vulnerability.
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
Product
Vendor
Name
Version
Website
CPE 2.3
CPE 2.2
CVSSv4
VulDB Vector: 🔒VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv3
VulDB Meta Base Score: 4.8VulDB Meta Temp Score: 4.7
VulDB Base Score: 5.3
VulDB Temp Score: 5.1
VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CNA Base Score: 4.3
CNA Vector (GitHub_M): 🔒
CVSSv2
| AV | AC | Au | C | I | A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| Vector | Complexity | Authentication | Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
VulDB Base Score: 🔒
VulDB Temp Score: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
Exploiting
Class: Null pointer dereferenceCWE: CWE-476 / CWE-404
CAPEC: 🔒
ATT&CK: 🔒
Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes
Availability: 🔒
Status: Not defined
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔒
| 0-Day | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
Threat Intelligence
Interest: 🔍Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍
Countermeasures
Recommended: UpgradeStatus: 🔍
0-Day Time: 🔒
Upgrade: libheif 1.23.1
Timeline
07/14/2026 CVE reserved08/18/2026 Advisory disclosed
08/18/2026 VulDB entry created
08/18/2026 VulDB entry last update
Sources
Product: github.comAdvisory: github.com
Status: Confirmed
CVE: CVE-2026-62377 (🔒)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2026-62377
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-392053
Entry
Created: 08/18/2026 23:48Changes: 08/18/2026 23:48 (66)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
No comments yet. Languages: en.
Please log in to comment.