CVE-2026-112900 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-112900
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity:
    Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
  • Attack Vector:
    Attack Vector Under Analysis
  • Privileges Required: None
    No authentication is required for exploitation.
  • Scope:
    Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2026-112900 Details

Status: Received on 19 Oct 2026, 22:17 UTC

Published on: 19 Oct 2026, 22:17 UTC

CVSS Release:

CVE-2026-112900 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-112900: Pillow is a Python imaging library. From 2.6.0 until 13.0.0, Pillow is vulnerable to argument injection when invoking Ghostscript for EPS input. EpsImagePlugin.Ghostscript passes a caller-controlled input filename after -f without converting it to a safe absolute path, so a name beginning with a hyphen can be interpreted as a Ghostscript option. An attacker who controls the filename can inject Ghostscript arguments. Arbitrary command execution specifically requires a leading @ argument-file filename and control of the referenced text file containing additional Ghostscript arguments; the reported chain reproduces with the default -dSAFER invocation. This issue is fixed in version 13.0.0.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2026-112900

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2026-112900 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2026-112900

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2026-112900.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2026-112900, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2026-112900, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2026-112900 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2026-112900 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2026-112900 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2026-112900 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-88

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

  • Parameter Injection CAPEC-137 An adversary manipulates the content of request parameters for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some parameter encodings use text characters as separators. For example, parameters in a HTTP GET message are encoded as name-value pairs separated by an ampersand (&). If an attacker can supply text strings that are used to fill in these parameters, then they can inject special characters used in the encoding scheme to add or modify parameters. For example, if user input is fed directly into an HTTP GET request and the user provides the value "myInput&new_param=myValue", then the input parameter is set to myInput, but a new parameter (new_param) is also added with a value of myValue. This can significantly change the meaning of the query that is processed by the server. Any encoding scheme where parameters are identified and separated by text characters is potentially vulnerable to this attack - the HTTP GET encoding used above is just one example.
  • Flash Parameter Injection CAPEC-174 An adversary takes advantage of improper data validation to inject malicious global parameters into a Flash file embedded within an HTML document. Flash files can leverage user-submitted data to configure the Flash document and access the embedding HTML document.
  • Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads CAPEC-41 This type of attack involves an attacker leveraging meta-characters in email headers to inject improper behavior into email programs. Email software has become increasingly sophisticated and feature-rich. In addition, email applications are ubiquitous and connected directly to the Web making them ideal targets to launch and propagate attacks. As the user demand for new functionality in email applications grows, they become more like browsers with complex rendering and plug in routines. As more email functionality is included and abstracted from the user, this creates opportunities for attackers. Virtually all email applications do not list email header information by default, however the email header contains valuable attacker vectors for the attacker to exploit particularly if the behavior of the email client application is known. Meta-characters are hidden from the user, but can contain scripts, enumerations, probes, and other attacks against the user's system.
  • HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) CAPEC-460 An adversary adds duplicate HTTP GET/POST parameters by injecting query string delimiters. Via HPP it may be possible to override existing hardcoded HTTP parameters, modify the application behaviors, access and, potentially exploit, uncontrollable variables, and bypass input validation checkpoints and WAF rules.
  • OS Command Injection CAPEC-88 In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2026-112900: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2026-77684 – The Bluetooth Classic Hands-Free Profile HF role in subsys/bluetooth/host/classic/hfp_hf.c does not release the AT command buffers that are still q...
  • CVE-2026-19595 – The user-mode syscall verifier z_vrfy_rtio_cqe_get_mempool_buffer() in subsys/rtio/rtio_syscalls.c validated its two output parameters, buff and bu...
  • CVE-2026-19178 – IBM Storage TS4500 Library 1.1.1.6 through 1.12.0.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to gain unauthorized administrative privileges due ...
  • CVE-2026-112991 – The html_to_markdown expansion module in MISP Modules contains a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in its is_safe_url() URL validati...
  • CVE-2026-112372 – A weakness has been identified in H3C Magic NX15 V100R017. This affects the function importprofile of the file /api/upload. This manipulation of th...