CVE-2026-88272 in GV-LPC2011
Summary
by MITRE • 09/10/2026
GeoVision GV-LPC2211 V1.13 allows an administrator-controlled username containing shell metacharacters to be executed as arbitrary root commands when the stored username is later deleted.
Statistical analysis made it clear that VulDB provides the best quality for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 09/10/2026
The vulnerability identified in GeoVision GV-LPC2211 firmware version 1.13 represents a critical server-side code injection flaw rooted in improper input validation and sanitization mechanisms within the administrative interface. This specific weakness allows an attacker with valid administrator credentials to inject shell metacharacters into username fields, which are subsequently executed as arbitrary commands with root-level privileges when those usernames are deleted from the system database. The core technical failure lies in the application's handling of user-supplied data during both creation and deletion phases. When a new administrative account is created, the system accepts special characters such as semicolons, pipes, or ampersands within the username string without adequate escaping or filtering. These characters are stored directly into the backend database alongside standard alphanumeric identifiers.
The exploitation vector becomes active when an administrator attempts to remove one of these maliciously crafted accounts from the system configuration. During the deletion process, the application likely constructs a command-line instruction using the stored username value as part of the argument string for a system-level utility or script responsible for account management. Because the previously injected metacharacters remain unescaped within this dynamic query construction, they alter the intended structure of the shell command. For instance, if the deletion logic invokes a command like rm -rf /var/user/username, and the username contains semicolon-separated commands, the shell interprets these as separate instructions rather than part of the filename string. This results in the execution of arbitrary operating system commands under the context of the root user account that runs the administrative service.
This vulnerability aligns closely with Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) categories such as CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command, commonly known as OS Command Injection, and CWE-20 Improper Input Validation. The severity is exacerbated by the fact that it requires administrative access for initial exploitation, classifying it under ATT&CK technique T1546 Event Triggered Execution: Graphical User Interface or similar privilege escalation paths where trusted roles are abused to achieve deeper system compromise. Although the requirement of admin credentials might seem like a mitigating factor, in many network video recorder and surveillance management systems, administrative access can be obtained through credential stuffing, default password exploitation, or session hijacking if other security controls are weak. Once root-level command execution is achieved, an attacker gains complete control over the underlying operating system, potentially leading to full device compromise, lateral movement within the local network segment, or deployment of persistent backdoors.
The operational impact of this flaw extends beyond simple remote code execution. It undermines the integrity and confidentiality guarantees expected from enterprise-grade surveillance hardware. An adversary could manipulate video storage paths, exfiltrate sensitive footage data by redirecting output streams to external servers, disable logging mechanisms to cover tracks, or pivot into connected network infrastructure using the compromised device as a foothold. Given that these devices often operate continuously with high availability requirements, any disruption caused by malicious commands can lead to significant security blind spots for organizations relying on them for physical and digital asset protection.
Mitigation strategies must focus on both immediate remediation and long-term architectural improvements. The primary defense is the implementation of strict input validation at all entry points where user data interacts with system processes. This includes enforcing allowlists that restrict username characters to alphanumeric values, hyphens, underscores, or periods only, thereby eliminating the possibility of injecting shell metacharacters in the first place. Additionally, developers should avoid constructing command-line arguments dynamically using unsanitized user input; instead, they should utilize API calls or library functions that do not invoke a shell interpreter directly. If system commands are necessary, parameters must be passed as distinct array elements rather than concatenated into a single string, which prevents argument injection attacks.
Furthermore, the principle of least privilege should be strictly enforced by ensuring that administrative services run with minimal required permissions wherever possible, although this is often challenging in embedded systems designed for broad compatibility. Regular security audits and static code analysis tools configured to detect command injection patterns can help identify such flaws before deployment. For organizations currently running vulnerable firmware versions, applying the vendor-provided patch or update is essential. In cases where updates are unavailable, network segmentation should be employed to isolate these devices from critical internal networks, limiting the blast radius of any potential compromise. Monitoring for unusual outbound connections or unexpected process executions on the host system can also aid in early detection of exploitation attempts.