Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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-2026-42370 is a critical-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Geovision Gv-Vms Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 45th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
A stack overflow vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2026-42370 and published on 2026-05-04, affects the WebCam Server Login functionality in GeoVision GV-VMS V20 version 20.0.2. This flaw, classified under CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write), allows a specially crafted HTTP request to trigger a stack overflow, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.0 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating critical severity due to its network accessibility, changed scope, and high impacts across confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
An unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network by sending a malicious HTTP request to the affected WebCam Server Login endpoint. Successful exploitation requires high attack complexity but no user interaction or privileges, enabling the attacker to achieve arbitrary code execution on the target system. This could allow full compromise of the GV-VMS server, potentially leading to unauthorized access, data theft, or further lateral movement within the victim's environment.
For mitigation details, security practitioners should consult the primary advisories from Talos Intelligence at https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/ and GeoVision's cyber security page at https://www.geovision.com.tw/cyber_security.php, which may provide patch information, workarounds, or updated versions of GV-VMS.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-26861
Vulnerability Data
A stack overflow vulnerability exists in the WebCam Server Login functionality of GeoVision GV-VMS V20 20.0.2. A specially crafted HTTP request can lead to an arbitrary code execution. An attacker can make an unauthenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
Secure-development practices (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
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.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.