Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 2.76% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2019
CVE-2019-11687High confidence
Affected product: Improper Input Validation
Unknown · Unknown
7.8HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedHigh technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Unknown Unknown and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
An issue was discovered in the DICOM Part 10 File Format in the NEMA DICOM Standard 1995 through 2019b and continuing in current implementations. The 128-byte preamble of a DICOM file that complies with this specification can contain arbitrary executable headers for multiple operating systems, including Portable Executable (PE) files for Windows and Executable and Linkable Format (ELF) files for Linux-based systems. This space is left unspecified so that dual-purpose files can be created. For example, dual-purpose TIFF/DICOM files are used in digital whole slide imaging applications in medicine. This design flaw enables system-wide compromise as malicious DICOM files are routinely shared between medical devices and hospital systems and transported via removable media for patient care coordination. To exploit this vulnerability, someone must execute the maliciously crafted file. These files can be executable even with the .dcm file extension. Anti-malware configurations at healthcare facilities often ignore medical imagery. DICOM files exist on systems that process protected health information, and successful exploitation could result in violations of regulatory compliance requirements such as HIPAA and FDA postmarket obligations.
What
An issue was discovered in the DICOM Part 10 File Format in the NEMA DICOM Standard 1995 through 2019b and continuing in current implementations. The 128-byte preamble of a DICOM file that complies with this specification can contain arbitrary executable headers for multiple operating systems, including Portable Executable (PE) files for Windows and Executable and Linkable Format (ELF) files for Linux-based systems. This space is left unspecified so that dual-purpose files can be created. For example, dual-purpose TIFF/DICOM files are used in digital whole slide imaging applications in medicine. This design flaw enables system-wide compromise as malicious DICOM files are routinely shared between medical devices and hospital systems and transported via removable media for patient care coordination. To exploit this vulnerability, someone must execute the maliciously crafted file. These files can be executable even with the .dcm file extension. Anti-malware configurations at healthcare facilities often ignore medical imagery. DICOM files exist on systems that process protected health information, and successful exploitation could result in violations of regulatory compliance requirements such as HIPAA and FDA postmarket obligations.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
An issue was discovered in the DICOM Part 10 File Format in the NEMA DICOM Standard 1995 through 2019b and continuing in current implementations. The 128-byte preamble of a DICOM file that complies with this specification can contain arbitrary executable headers for multiple operating systems, including Portable Executable (PE) files for Windows and Executable and Linkable Format (ELF) files for Linux-based systems. This space is left unspecified so that dual-purpose files can be created. For example, dual-purpose TIFF/DICOM files are used in digital whole slide imaging applications in medicine. This design flaw enables system-wide compromise as malicious DICOM files are routinely shared between medical devices and hospital systems and transported via removable media for patient care coordination. To exploit this vulnerability, someone must execute the maliciously crafted file. These files can be executable even with the .dcm file extension. Anti-malware configurations at healthcare facilities often ignore medical imagery. DICOM files exist on systems that process protected health information, and successful exploitation could result in violations of regulatory compliance requirements such as HIPAA and FDA postmarket obligations.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material Reference recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.A structured CVE source labels at least one public reference as exploit material. BlackTree has not independently validated that it is safe, reliable or weaponised.
- Likely attack path
- local access → Improper Input Validation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-20 ↗
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- n/a
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 2 May 2019 · Last source change 2 Jun 2026, 18:24 UTC · CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCISA ADP
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-01
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2019-3357
Product sourceUnavailable
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCISA ADP
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2019-3357 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2019-3357"}
- Public exploit evidencePublic exploit evidence changed from No public exploit to Public exploit reference.labs.cylera.com ↗
- Before
- No public exploit
- After
- Public exploit reference
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.