CVE-2026-7703
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-7703 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Pixera Two Media (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 24th 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-2026-7703 is a code injection vulnerability affecting AV Stumpfl Pixera Two Media Server versions up to 25.2 R2. The flaw resides in an unknown function within the Websocket API component, allowing remote attackers to manipulate inputs and inject code. It is classified under CWE-74 (injection) and CWE-94 (code injection), with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L), indicating high severity due to its network accessibility and lack of prerequisites.
Attackers can exploit this vulnerability remotely without authentication or user interaction, targeting systems exposing the Websocket API over the network. Successful exploitation enables limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, potentially allowing arbitrary code execution within the context of the media server. An exploit has been publicly disclosed, increasing the risk of immediate abuse.
Advisories recommend upgrading to version 25.2 R3 to mitigate the issue, as detailed in the Pixera changelog. Additional resources from VulDB and a GitHub Gist provide further vulnerability details, submission records, and the exploit code itself.
The published exploit heightens the urgency for patching, as it may already be in use against exposed instances of this media server software.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-26841
Vulnerability Data
A flaw has been found in AV Stumpfl Pixera Two Media Server up to 25.2 R2. Impacted is an unknown function of the component Websocket API. This manipulation causes code injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has…
more
been published and may be used. Upgrading to version 25.2 R3 is recommended to address this issue. Upgrading the affected component is advised.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
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 require input validation and output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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.
Security testing in development catches injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.
Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.