CVE-2026-59203
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
Pillow's EPS parser (PIL/EpsImagePlugin.py) accepts a negative byte count in the %%BeginBinary directive. A crafted EPS file can cause Image.open() to seek backwards to the same directive and parse it repeatedly, resulting in an infinite loop and CPU denial of service.
The issue is triggered during Image.open(), does not require Image.load(), and does not require Ghostscript execution.
Confirmed affected versions: Pillow 12.0.0 through 12.2.0.
Details
The issue is in the EPS parser in PIL/EpsImagePlugin.py. When parsing an EPS %%BeginBinary directive, Pillow reads the byte count from the file and passes it directly to a relative seek operation without validating that the value is non-negative.
Relevant code:
elif bytes_mv[:14] == b"%%BeginBinary:":
bytecount = int(byte_arr[14:bytes_read])
self.fp.seek(bytecount, os.SEEK_CUR)
There is no validation that bytecount is non-negative.
If an attacker provides a negative value such as %%BeginBinary:-18, the parser moves the file pointer backwards from the end of the directive line to the same line region. The next parser iteration reads the same %%BeginBinary:-18 directive again, performs the same backward seek, and repeats indefinitely. This causes Image.open() to hang in an infinite loop and consume CPU.
In local testing, the issue is present in Pillow 12.0.0, 12.1.0, 12.1.1, and 12.2.0. Pillow 11.3.0 did not hang with the same PoC, so this appears to affect the 12.x EPS parsing path.
PoC
Save the following content as pillow_eps_beginbinary_dos.eps:
%!PS-Adobe-3.0 EPSF-3.0
%%BoundingBox: 0 0 1 1
%%EndComments
% dummy comment after transition
%%BeginBinary:-18
%%EOF
Then run:
python -m pip install "Pillow==12.2.0"
python - <<'PY'
from PIL import Image
Image.open("pillow_eps_beginbinary_dos.eps")
PY
Expected behavior: Pillow should reject the malformed EPS file with a parser exception.
Actual behavior: the process does not return. It hangs inside Image.open() and continuously consumes CPU.
The loop behavior can be observed by tracing the parser state. The file pointer repeatedly seeks from position 112 back to 94, causing the same %%BeginBinary:-18 line to be parsed again and again:
LINE b'%%BeginBinary:-18' pos_after_newline 112
BeginBinary bytecount -18 seek from 112 to 94
LINE b'%%BeginBinary:-18' pos_after_newline 112
BeginBinary bytecount -18 seek from 112 to 94
LINE b'%%BeginBinary:-18' pos_after_newline 112
BeginBinary bytecount -18 seek from 112 to 94
Impact
This is a denial-of-service vulnerability. An attacker who can provide an EPS file to an application using Pillow for image validation, metadata parsing, previews, uploads, or batch image processing can cause the image parsing process to hang during Image.open().
This can impact web services and backend workers that parse untrusted image files, especially if image parsing is performed in a main worker process without CPU limits, timeouts, or process isolation. The issue does not require Ghostscript execution and does not require calling Image.load(), so applications that only use Image.open() to validate or identify uploaded images may still be affected.
Suggested fix: validate the parsed %%BeginBinary byte count before seeking. If the byte count is negative, reject the file with a parsing exception instead of calling self.fp.seek(bytecount, os.SEEK_CUR).
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop')
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
5.3medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pillow | pypi | - | - | >=12.0.0,<12.3.0 | 12.3.0 |
CVSS:3 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
There is no loss of confidentiality.
There is no loss of trust or accuracy within the impacted component.
Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Debian
-
CVSS SCORE
N/AlowUbuntu
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5mediumBitnami
BIT-pillow-2026-59203
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5highChainguard
CGA-rh3w-vmm2-5pm8
-
minimos
MINI-33p8-x982-5jxx
-
minimos
MINI-3482-jg8q-xr97
-
minimos
MINI-3w9c-578q-hjhw
-
minimos
MINI-5cgp-fqxf-mq6h
-
minimos
MINI-7p5f-5hqm-j843
-
minimos
MINI-fjh7-2xh5-2m3h
-
minimos
MINI-jm8c-v29p-5f25
-
minimos
MINI-qvj8-ww4h-g9w2
-