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-2026-7372 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 40th 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.
CVE-2026-7372 is a stack overflow vulnerability in the WebCam Server Login functionality of GeoVision GV-VMS V20 version 20.0.2. The issue stems from an unconstrained call to sscanf that parses the Buffer variable into username and password stack variables without limiting the extracted content to the 40-character size of those buffers. A specially crafted HTTP request can trigger the overflow, enabling arbitrary code execution, and is classified under CWE-787 with a CVSS v3.1 score of 9.0 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H).
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending a malicious HTTP request containing an overly long username or password in the authorization string, exceeding the 40-character buffer limits and causing a stack overflow. While attacker-controlled data enables the overflow, exploitation may be complicated by constraints such as the absence of null bytes. Successful exploitation leads to full arbitrary code execution with SYSTEM privileges on the host running the service.
For mitigation details, refer to 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.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-26864
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.…
more
#### Stack-overflow via unconstrained sscanf The call to `sscanf` at [1] to split the `Buffer` variable into the `username` and `password` variables doesn't limit the size of the extracted content to match the destination buffers' sizes. In this case, if either the username or password decoded from the authorization string exceeds `40` characters (the size the stack variables `username` and `password`) then a stack overflow will occur. The data is controlled by an attacker, but sronger constraints (e.g. no null bytes) may make exploitation harder. A successful attack could lead to full code execution as SYSTEM on the machine running the service.
- 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.