basicsecurity.net
Proof, not just disclosure.
Threats / GeoVision / CVE-2024-11120
CVE-2024-11120 · EUVD no mirror located · GCVE no mirror located Verified 2026-06-22

GeoVision Multiple Devices vulnerability

Multiple GeoVision devices are vulnerable to OS command injection, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary system commands. Affected products may be end-of-life or end-of-service.

Verdict

Today item — known-exploited.

Remote unauthenticated OS command injection in GeoVision devices enables direct system compromise. Active exploitation observed in the wild. Discontinuation of affected products is strongly recommended due to lack of vendor support.

CISA KEV Yes · 2025-05-073EPSS 0.28554 (verify live)4
01

Is it exploitable?

— the evidence, ranked above the score
Reported exploitation
55 independent public reports of in-the-wild exploitation are cataloged.Distinct reporting sources (vendor, incident response, government); open them for the underlying claims.
Exploited in the wild
Listed in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog (added 2025-05-07).
CISA KEV ↗Confirmed
Probability (EPSS)
EPSS 0.28554 — modeled likelihood of exploitation activity.EPSS is a daily-changing model output — open the source for today's value.
Severity / affected
Affected: GeoVision, Multiple Devices. Confirm exact fixed builds in the vendor advisory.
NVD ↗Reported
Weakness (CWE)
Mapped to CWE-78 OS Command Injection — weakness family: Injection.CWE assignment from the public NVD record; the weakness class drives how the flaw is exploited.
NVD ↗Reported
02

Who’s exploiting it?

— attribution turns risk into urgency
Attribution not established

No confirmed (advisory-backed) threat-actor attribution is established for this record. Absence of a named actor is not absence of compromise — see Coverage & confidence.

03

Why it matters

— the attack path, told twice: adversary, then board
1

Front door — unauthenticated access narrative 1

Attacker
I identify a GeoVision device exposed on the network without authentication requirements.
Business
Perimeter security fails to prevent access to legacy surveillance infrastructure.
2

Keys to the kingdom — privilege/identity takeover narrative 2

Attacker
I craft a malicious request containing shell metacharacters to inject OS commands into the vulnerable input handler.
Business
Application input validation is absent, allowing command injection payloads to reach the system shell.
3

Lateral reach — past segmentation narrative 3

Attacker
I execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the device process, gaining full system control.
Business
The compromised device becomes a foothold for lateral movement, data exfiltration, or network reconnaissance.
04

What to do

— defensible action
  • Remediate per the vendor advisory — confirm the fixed build for your version and verify exposure.1
Say it to the boardA vulnerability with this evidence profile is a defensible budget line, not a backlog ticket — fund the change against the proof above.
05

Coverage & confidence

— what we know, and what we don’t

Established (cited)

  • KEV listing (CISA)
  • EPSS probability (FIRST)
  • 55 reported-exploitation source(s)
  • CWE weakness mapping (NVD)
  • Catalogued by twcert (CNA)
  • Coverage gaps — stated, not hidden

  • No EUVD / GCVE mirror in feed — single-authority dependency for the identifier.
  • EPSS & exposure are time-varying; verify live at the source.
  • Threat-actor attribution not established from feed data — absence of a name is not absence of compromise.
  • No finder/reporter credit recorded in the public CVE entry — the work behind this find is unattributed.
  • Disclosure & credit2
    Catalogued by twcertCNA
    Credited with finding itNo finder named in the public CVE record — the work behind this find is unattributed.