Cloudanix VulnDB

CVE-2026-47247

High · 7.5

CVSS

7.5

EPSS

0.5%

Published

Jul 21, 2026

CISA due date

—

Cloudanix analysis

Next patch cycle SSVC: Track

There is not enough public information yet to know what this issue affects or whether it poses a real risk to your systems.

Exploitation
Other
Attacker needs
None
Complexity
Low
Impact
Other
Component
Other
Class
Other
Remediation
No Fix Yet
Effort
Other
Patch risk
Other

What it actually does

Publicly available vulnerability metadata for this identifier does not currently describe the affected product, vulnerable component, attack vector, required privileges, or failure mode. As a result, the technical impact cannot be reliably characterized beyond noting that it is classified generically as an "Other" vulnerability family and has no listed affected products or fixed versions in the provided data.

Why it matters to the business

At this time, there is insufficient information to determine whether this issue affects business-critical systems or creates material operational risk. The low EPSS value and lack of KEV listing suggest no current evidence of broad exploitation, but organizations should continue monitoring for vendor advisories or updated vulnerability intelligence.

How an attack unfolds

No credible end-to-end exploitation narrative can be produced from the available data because the vulnerable product, vulnerable interface, attacker prerequisites, and exploit condition are not specified. There is also no indication of public exploit maturity, known exploitation, ransomware use, or named threat actor activity in the provided metadata.

How to fix it

No product-specific patch or fixed version is available in the provided data. Security teams should monitor the relevant CVE record, vendor advisories, package repositories, and vulnerability intelligence feeds for affected product details and fixed versions. Once affected products are identified, apply the vendor-provided update, remove or disable vulnerable components where practical, and restrict exposure of potentially affected services until remediation is complete.

How to confirm the fix worked

Because no affected product, version range, or fixed release is listed, validation should focus on intelligence completeness rather than technical testing. Confirm whether vendors or software composition analysis tools identify this CVE in deployed assets. If future advisories identify affected versions, validate by checking installed package/application versions against the fixed-version guidance and by confirming exposed services are either patched, disabled, or no longer reachable from untrusted networks.

Typical attack path

  1. Monitor for publication of vendor advisory or enriched CVE details identifying the affected product and vulnerable versions.
  2. Determine whether the vulnerable product or component is externally exposed, internally reachable, or embedded in dependent software.
  3. If affected, an attacker would attempt to reach the vulnerable component through the documented attack vector once known.
  4. The attacker would trigger the specific flaw described by the vendor or maintainer once technical details are available.
  5. Post-exploitation behavior would depend on the eventual impact class, such as code execution, privilege escalation, information disclosure, denial of service, or security control bypass.

How to detect it

There are no specific exploitation indicators available from the provided metadata. SOC teams should monitor vulnerability intelligence updates and, if an affected product is later identified, review relevant application, web, authentication, endpoint, and network logs around the first known exploitation dates for unusual requests, crashes, new files, suspicious child processes, privilege changes, outbound connections, or configuration changes tied to that product.

What your security team should do

  • Track this CVE for enrichment from authoritative sources such as vendor advisories, NVD, CISA KEV, OSV, GitHub Security Advisories, and package ecosystem advisories.
  • Do not prioritize emergency remediation solely from the current metadata; there is no KEV listing, no known ransomware association, and no public exploit maturity indicated.
  • Use asset inventory and software composition analysis to re-evaluate exposure if affected products or package coordinates are later published.
  • Create a watchlist item so new fixed-version or exploitability information triggers reassessment.
  • If the CVE becomes associated with an internet-facing product, prioritize exposure review, patch testing, and compensating controls.

The record

libheif is a HEIF and AVIF file format decoder and encoder. Prior to version 1.22.0, two bugs in libheif chain to leak process heap memory as visible pixel values in decoded grid images. An attacker who uploads a crafted AVIF/HEIC file to any server-side image processor (WordPress, Sharp/libvips, ImageMagick, etc.) can recover heap data - including library function pointers sufficient to defeat ASLR, or any other secret - from the publicly-downloadable transcoded JPEG/PNG/WebP output. Local attack vectors are also possible. Version 1.22.0 fixes the issue.

Affected packages

Ecosystem Package Introduced Fixed
openSUSE:Leap 16.0 libheif 0 1.23.0-160000.1.1
openSUSE:Tumbleweed libheif 0 1.22.2-1.1

Related vulnerabilities