CVE-2026-42363
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedAn insufficient encryption vulnerability exists in the Device Authentication functionality of GeoVision GV-IP Device Utility 9.0.5. Listening to broadcast packets can lead to credentials leak. An attacker can listen to broadcast messages to trigger this vulnerability. When interacting with various Geovision devices on the network, the utility may send privileged commands; in order to do so, the username and password of the device need to be provided. In some instances the command is broadcasted over UDP and the username/password are encrypted using a cryptographic protocol that appears to be derivated from Blowfish. However the symmetric key used for the encryption is also included in the packet, and thus the security of the username/password only relies on the "obscurity" of the encryption scheme. An attacker on the same LAN can listen to the broadcast traffic once an admin user interacts with the device, and decrypt the credentials using their own implementation of the algorithm. With this password the attacker would have full control over the device configuration, allowing them to change its ip address or even reset it to factory default.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe GV-IP Device Utility 9.0.5 encrypts device credentials using a custom Blowfish-derived algorithm before broadcasting privileged commands over UDP. However, the symmetric encryption key is included in the same packet as the encrypted credentials, making the encryption ineffective. An attacker on the same LAN can capture these broadcast packets and decrypt the credentials using their own implementation, gaining full device control.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify GV-IP Device Utility versionCheck the installed software version - look in Add/Remove Programs on Windows, or run the application and check Help > About, or right-click the executable and view Properties > Details for version informationAffected if Version is exactly 9.0.5 (or any version with the same vulnerable encryption implementation)
-
Confirm UDP broadcast is enabledCheck the application settings or network configuration for device discovery or configuration features that use UDP broadcast. Look for UDP port 4550 or similar broadcast settings in the utility's configuration files or GUI optionsAffected if UDP broadcast is used for device discovery, configuration, or sending privileged commands to cameras/DVRs
-
Inspect network traffic for unencrypted key transmissionUse a network capture tool (Wireshark, tcpdump) on the same network segment while the utility sends commands. Filter for UDP packets containing what appears to be encrypted data alongside what looks like an encryption key or salt in cleartextAffected if UDP packets contain both encrypted credentials AND an encryption key/salt in the same packet in plaintext or reversibly encoded form
-
Verify custom Blowfish-derived encryption is in useExamine the application binaries or configuration for references to custom encryption routines, or capture and analyze the protocol to identify the Blowfish-derived algorithm characteristicsAffected if The application uses a custom encryption scheme rather than standard TLS/HTTPS for credential transmission
-
Check for plaintext credential exposure in broadcastsCapture UDP broadcast packets and attempt to decrypt using the key found in the same packet - if successful, this confirms the vulnerabilityAffected if Credentials can be decrypted using the key transmitted in the same packet
You are affected if GV-IP Device Utility 9.0.5 is installed and uses UDP broadcast for sending device credentials with the encryption key included in the same packet.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataMigrate to secure authenticated channels (TLS/HTTPS) for device management instead of UDP broadcast. Alternatively, implement proper key exchange mechanisms or pre-shared keys that are not transmitted with encrypted data.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-42363 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-42363 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data