CVE-2026-59679

fs_read_glyphs() heap OOB read/write via encoding array index mismatch in libXfont2

CRITICAL
9
CVSS Score
Published: September 10, 2026 at 08:15 AM UTC
Updated: September 10, 2026 at 04:18 PM UTC
13 products affected across 2 vendorsLinux Enterprise ServerLinux Enterprise DesktopManager Server

Using Container suse/kiosk/tigervnc-x11vnc:1.14-63.8 by SUSE?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Container suse/kiosk/tigervnc-x11vnc:1.14-63.8 - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
CRITICAL9
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.3%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

fs_read_glyphs() in the libXfont2 font-server client (src/fc/fserve.c) indexes the per-character encoding[] array using num_chars from the FS_QueryXBitmaps16 reply, but that array was allocated with a size derived from num_extents in the separate FS_QueryXExtents16 reply. The two CARD32 fields are never cross-checked. A malicious or compromised font server can send a small num_extents (e.g. 1) in the extents reply, then a large num_chars (e.g. 100000) in the bitmaps reply. This causes attacker-controlled out-of-bounds heap read and writes.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

? ≤ v ≤ 2.0.8?
? ≤ v < 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1?
Affected range stops below 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
? ≤ v < 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1?
Affected range stops below 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
? ≤ v < 2.0.3-12.el9_8.3? ≤ v < 2.0.3-2.el8_10.3? ≤ v < 2.0.6-5.el10_2.3?
Affected range stops below 2.0.3-12.el9_8.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.0.3-2.el8_10.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.0.6-5.el10_2.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
? ≤ v < 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1?
Affected range stops below 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
? ≤ v < 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1?
Affected range stops below 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
? ≤ v < 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1? ≤ v < 2.0.3-3.6.1? ≤ v < 2.0.7-160000.5.1?
Affected range stops below 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.0.3-3.6.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.0.7-160000.5.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
? ≤ v < 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1? ≤ v < 2.0.3-3.6.1? ≤ v < 2.0.7-160000.5.1?
Affected range stops below 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.0.3-3.6.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.0.7-160000.5.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
? ≤ v < 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1?
Affected range stops below 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
? ≤ v < 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1?
Affected range stops below 2.0.3-150000.3.6.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet, and no fixed version or vendor advisory is recorded against it.

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatableTotal impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

9CRITICALsuse
Attack Vector
NETWORK
Complexity
HIGH
Privileges
NONE
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
CHANGED
Confidentiality
HIGH
Integrity
HIGH
Availability
HIGH
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusAWAITING ANALYSIS
CWE
CWE-787

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card