CVE-2019-7193
Qnap Qts 4.3.6.0895 … 4.4.1.1033
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2019-7193 is a critical-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Qnap Qts. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 3% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
This improper input validation vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2019-7193 and assigned CWE-20, affects QNAP QTS and Photo Station. It carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8 and permits remote injection of arbitrary code into the system.
Unauthenticated attackers can exploit the flaw over the network to achieve remote code execution with full impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Public proof-of-concept code targeting QNAP QTS and Photo Station 6.0.3 has been published, confirming the attack path requires no user interaction or credentials.
QNAP's security advisory NAS-201911-25 directs users to update QTS to the latest available versions as the primary mitigation. The vulnerability is also catalogued by CISA among actively exploited issues, indicating confirmed real-world exploitation.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2019-16737
Vulnerability Data
This improper input validation vulnerability allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary code to the system. To fix the vulnerability, QNAP recommend updating QTS to their latest versions.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 08 June 2022
Related Threats
Threat-Actor AttributionAI
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Security testing and developer training directly verify and enforce proper input validation, reducing exploitability of injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security testing and evaluation at multiple SDLC stages directly detects missing or flawed input validation, with the required remediation process ensuring fixes are applied.
Directly implements checks on information inputs to reject invalid data before processing.
Spam protection mechanisms perform filtering and detection on inbound/outbound messages, directly compensating for missing or weak input validation of unsolicited content.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
A.8.25 mandates security requirements, secure coding guidelines, checkpoints, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a slice of input validation defects but leaves the majority (incomplete enforcement, second-order inputs, parser differentials, post-validation canonicalization) unaddressed as in the SA-3 and A.8.28 anchors.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-20, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.