CVE-2026-57879
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 unauthenticated stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in ssvr in GeoVision GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by insufficient bounds checking when processing RTSP custom authentication data. A remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted RTSP request, resulting in memory corruption, denial of service, or potentially arbitrary code execution.
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 confidenceAn unauthenticated stack-based buffer overflow in the ssvr component of GeoVision GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 devices (V1.12 and earlier) allows remote attackers to corrupt stack memory via specially crafted RTSP requests with malformed custom authentication data, potentially leading to code execution.
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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 the device modelCheck if the device is a GeoVision GV-LPC2011 or GV-LPC2211 by reviewing the device documentation, label, or management interface.Affected if The device is a GV-LPC2011 or GV-LPC2211 model.
-
Determine the firmware versionAccess the device web interface or management console and locate the firmware version information, typically found in the System or About settings.Affected if The firmware version is V1.12 or any version earlier than V1.12.
-
Verify RTSP service statusCheck if the RTSP service is enabled on the device through the management interface or by attempting to connect to the RTSP port (default 554).Affected if The RTSP service is enabled and accessible on the network.
-
Check network exposureReview firewall rules or network configuration to determine if the RTSP port is exposed to untrusted networks or the internet.Affected if The RTSP service is reachable from untrusted or external network segments without authentication controls.
A user is affected if they have a GV-LPC2011 or GV-LPC2211 device running firmware V1.12 or earlier with the RTSP service enabled and accessible to potential attackers.
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 dataApply vendor-supplied firmware patches when available; if no patch exists, implement network segmentation to restrict access to RTSP services and consider disabling RTSP or deploying compensating controls until a fix is obtained.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $11,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-57879 — 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-2026-57879 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