Cloudanix VulnDB

CVE-2026-50142

High · 7.5

CVSS

7.5

EPSS

0.7%

Published

Aug 18, 2026

CISA due date

—

Cloudanix analysis

Monitor only SSVC: Track

There is not enough public information yet to know what software is affected or what action is required.

Exploitation
Other
Attacker needs
Other
Complexity
Theoretical
Impact
Other
Component
Other
Class
Other
Remediation
Other
Effort
Other
Patch risk
Other

What it actually does

Insufficient vulnerability details are available from the provided record to characterize the technical impact. The CVE entry has no description, affected products, vulnerable versions, fixed versions, or vulnerability class beyond a generic "Other" family assignment. As a result, defenders should treat this as an untriaged placeholder until authoritative vendor, NVD, CNA, or maintainer advisories identify the affected component and flaw type.

Why it matters to the business

At this time there is no evidence in the provided data that this issue affects any specific product, version, or deployed technology. Business risk cannot be meaningfully estimated until affected products and remediation details are published. It is not listed in CISA KEV, is not marked as ransomware-associated, and has no reported exploit maturity, which lowers immediate operational urgency compared with known exploited vulnerabilities.

How an attack unfolds

No end-to-end exploitation path can be reliably described from the available information. An attacker would first need to identify a real affected product and vulnerable version, understand the underlying bug class, and develop a working exploit. Because no affected products, prerequisites, authentication requirements, attack vector, or payload behavior are provided, any detailed exploitation narrative would be speculative.

How to fix it

No product-specific remediation is available because no affected products or fixed versions were provided. Security teams should monitor the CNA, vendor advisories, NVD, package maintainers, and vulnerability intelligence feeds for updates. If affected products are later identified, upgrade to the vendor-designated fixed version, apply mitigations, or disable the vulnerable feature as directed. Until then, maintain standard hardening controls: minimize exposed services, enforce least privilege, apply routine patching, and monitor for newly published exploit details.

How to confirm the fix worked

Confirm exposure by checking whether any authoritative advisory later maps this CVE to products, packages, or versions present in the environment. Validate remediation only after a vendor publishes fixed versions or mitigation steps. In the interim, vulnerability scanners may show no result or an informational placeholder; treat any finding as low-confidence unless it includes a specific affected product, installed version, and reference to a vendor advisory.

Typical attack path

  1. Monitor public advisories, code repositories, release notes, or vulnerability databases for details about the CVE.
  2. Identify whether any product or package in use is later confirmed as affected.
  3. If affected software exists, determine exposure, version, reachable attack surface, and authentication requirements.
  4. Attempt exploitation only if technical details or proof-of-concept code become available.
  5. Use any successful compromise to achieve the impact associated with the eventual vulnerability class, such as data access, service disruption, privilege escalation, or code execution.

How to detect it

There are no CVE-specific exploitation artifacts, log patterns, file paths, process names, network signatures, or known threat actor procedures available from the provided data. SOC teams should monitor vulnerability intelligence feeds for new exploit details and correlate any future affected-product information with existing telemetry such as application logs, authentication logs, EDR process events, web access logs, crash reports, and network traffic. Until the affected technology and exploit mechanics are known, detection should rely on baseline anomaly monitoring rather than CVE-specific indicators.

What your security team should do

  • Track this CVE for enrichment from NVD, the assigning CNA, vendor advisories, and threat intelligence sources.
  • Do not create emergency patching activity until an affected product and fix are confirmed.
  • Add the CVE to vulnerability management watchlists so newly published affected-product mappings are reviewed promptly.
  • If this CVE later maps to internet-facing, identity, remote access, security tooling, or widely deployed infrastructure software, reassess priority immediately.
  • Tune detection and response content only after technical details, affected software, exploit behavior, or indicators are published.

The record

libheif is a HEIF and AVIF file format decoder and encoder. From 1.19.0 until 1.23.0, a crafted HEIF sequence accepted by heif_context_read_from_memory() with the msf1 sequence brand can cause unbounded heap allocation. In libheif/sequences/seq_boxes.cc, Box_stsz::parse() applies max_sequence_frames only to variable-size samples, so fixed-size mode accepts an attacker-controlled sample_count without a bound. In libheif/sequences/track.cc, Track::load() also adds current_sample_idx and samples_per_chunk in 32-bit arithmetic, allowing the consistency check to be bypassed by wraparound. The resulting values reach the Chunk::Chunk() allocation path, which can consume gigabytes of memory and crash or stall the process through memory exhaustion. This issue is fixed in version 1.23.0.

Affected packages

Ecosystem Package Introduced Fixed
openSUSE:Leap 16.0 libheif 0 1.23.0-160000.1.1
openSUSE:Tumbleweed libheif 0 1.23.0-2.1

Related vulnerabilities