CVE-2026-57880
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 parsing RTSP Digest authentication fields. A remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted RTSP request containing overly long authentication data, 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 · moderate confidenceAn unauthenticated stack-based buffer overflow in the ssvr component of GeoVision GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 IP camera devices (firmware V1.12 and earlier) allows remote attackers to corrupt stack memory via oversized RTSP Digest authentication fields due to missing bounds checks.
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 device modelLog into the camera's web admin interface and locate the model number on the Device Information or Status page, or inspect the physical label.Affected if The device is not a GeoVision GV-LPC2011 or GV-LPC2211.
-
Determine firmware versionIn the same admin UI, find the firmware version field (usually labeled 'Firmware Version' or 'Version').Affected if Firmware version is V1.12 or earlier (including V1.12, V1.11, etc.).
-
Confirm RTSP service is enabledGo to the Network or Streaming settings page and verify that the RTSP server (the ssvr component) is turned on.Affected if RTSP is enabled; the vulnerability only applies when the ssvr component is active.
-
Verify RTSP is reachable from untrusted networkScan the device's RTSP port (commonly 554) or check firewall rules to see if the service is exposed to networks other than a trusted VLAN.Affected if The RTSP port is open to the internet or to untrusted IP ranges, meaning remote exploitation is possible.
If the device is a GV-LPC2011/LPC2211 running firmware V1.12 or earlier and the RTSP (ssvr) service is enabled and reachable, the environment is affected.
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 dataUpgrade firmware to V1.13 or later if available; otherwise segment affected devices on isolated VLANs, restrict RTSP access to trusted IPs, and monitor for anomalous RTSP traffic.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,760.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-57880 — 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-2026-57880 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