Security Resilience

CVE-2019-7193

Qnap Qts 4.3.6.0895 … 4.4.1.1033

CISA KEVActive ExploitationEUVD ExploitedPublic PoCRansomware-linked
Published
05 December 2019
Modified
27 October 2025
KEV Added
08 June 2022
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 9.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.14 97th percentile
Risk Priority 97 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS 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

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

AnonOps
People’s Republic of China State-Sponsored Cyber Actors Exploit Network Providers and Devices | CISA
The Magic
People’s Republic of China State-Sponsored Cyber Actors Exploit Network Providers and Devices | CISA

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2018-19949Same product: Qnap Qtsboth on KEV
CVE-2018-19953Same product: Qnap Qtsboth on KEV
CVE-2018-19943Same product: Qnap Qtsboth on KEV
CVE-2019-7192Same product: Qnap Qtsboth on KEV
CVE-2017-6361Same product: Qnap Qts
CVE-2019-7194Same product: Qnap Qtsboth on KEV
CVE-2017-6360Same product: Qnap Qts
CVE-2023-23363Same product: Qnap Qts
CVE-2022-27593Same product: Qnap Qtsboth on KEV
CVE-2019-7195Same product: Qnap Qtsboth on KEV

Affected Assets

qnap
qts
4.3.6.0895, 4.3.6.0907, 4.3.6.0923, 4.3.6.0944, 4.3.6.0959

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.

addresses: CWE-20

Security testing and developer training directly verify and enforce proper input validation, reducing exploitability of injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

addresses: CWE-20

Security testing and evaluation at multiple SDLC stages directly detects missing or flawed input validation, with the required remediation process ensuring fixes are applied.

addresses: CWE-20

Directly implements checks on information inputs to reject invalid data before processing.

addresses: CWE-20

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.

blocks

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.

blocks

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.

blocks

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.

prevents

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.

finds

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.

References