Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-7371 is a high-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Geovision Gv-Lpc2011 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked at the 11th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — 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.
CVE-2026-7371 describes multiple reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web Interface / ssi.cgi functionality of GeoVision LPC2011/LPC2211 version 1.10. These flaws allow a specially crafted malicious URL to trigger arbitrary JavaScript code execution within a victim's browser. The issue specifically arises from reflected XSS in the error message displayed when requesting a non-existing page.
An unauthenticated attacker with network access can exploit this vulnerability by providing a crafted URL to a target user, requiring user interaction such as clicking a link or visiting the malicious page (UI:R). Successful exploitation leads to JavaScript execution in the context of the web interface (S:C), resulting in high confidentiality impact (C:H) by potentially stealing sensitive data like session cookies or credentials, with no impact on integrity or availability (I:N/A:N). The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.4 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N) and is associated with CWE-79.
Mitigation details are available in advisories from Talos Intelligence (https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/) and GeoVision's cyber security page (https://www.geovision.com.tw/cyber_security.php). Security practitioners should consult these resources for patch information or workarounds specific to the affected GeoVision devices.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-26863
Vulnerability Data
Multiple reflected cross-site scripting (xss) vulnerabilities exist in the Web Interface / ssi.cgi functionality of GeoVision LPC2011/LPC2211 1.10. A specially crafted malicious url can lead to an arbitrary javascript code execution. An attacker can provide a crafted URL to trigger…
more
this vulnerability. Reflected XXS via the error message for requesting non-existing page.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect input neutralization through targeted web-application tests.
Input validation directly enforces neutralization of untrusted data before it reaches web output generation.
Output filtering can catch or sanitize unneutralized script content before it is served to users.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly target introduction of XSS via coding standards/testing (mostly), yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors unaddressed (partial).
Patching and EOL replacement can remediate known XSS instances in libraries or frameworks (partial) but do nothing to enforce input neutralization in application code (none).
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-coding testing and automated code-analysis tools are applied to detect improper neutralization of script-related content during web-page generation.
Knowledge exchange on emerging attack techniques and patches reduces the likelihood that cross-site scripting flaws remain unaddressed in deployed applications.
Operational indicators of compromise for web-application attacks can be incorporated into WAF or input-filtering rules, lowering the likelihood that unsanitized data reaches the browser.
Requiring language-specific secure-coding standards and automated scanning during the SDLC catches missing output encoding or improper neutralization of untrusted data before the software reaches production.
Secure-coding standards, SAST scans and removal of insecure code samples together eliminate the failure to neutralize script content that produces cross-site scripting flaws.
Webpage malware scanning and block-listing of known malicious sites reduce the likelihood that reflected or stored script payloads reach a user’s browser.