CVE-2026-5304
CVE-2026-5304 — An ACAP configuration file lacks input validation, which could potentially lead to privilege escalation
An ACAP configuration file lacks input validation, which could potentially lead to privilege escalation. This vulnerability can only be exploited if the Axis device is configured to allow the installation of unsigned ACAP applications, and if an attacker convinces the victim to install a malicious ACAP application.
Published Updated Sources: NVD, Axis Communications AB (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, SOCRadar CTI
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Reported
not confirmed by CISA
EPSS
0%
ahead of 0% of scored CVEs
CVSS base
5.7
medium
Remediation
The vendor's own words where we have them.
Upgrade AXIS OS to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.
- Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
- Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Axis Communications AB | AXIS OS | 12.0.0 to < 12.11.12 | Vulnerable |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Availability
None
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Scope
Unchanged
Attack Complexity
High
Attack Vector
Network
Privileges Req
High
User Interaction
Required
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.7 | CVSS 3.1 | medium | 0.5 | 5.2 | axis.com (CNA), Axis Communications AB (CNA), GHSA |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
What this weakness leads to
MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.
CWE-1287 · Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input
- Varies by Context::
Mitigation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an accept known good input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, boat may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as red or blue. Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-1287
Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.
Public exploit
Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.
Repositories
9
1 of the 5 sampled are weaponized
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable AXIS OS.
- Review endpoint telemetry for service binary replacement, suspicious service launches, or privilege changes tied to the affected agent.
- Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 9 public PoC repositories were reported.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.
- 2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 5.7 (AV:N)
Aug 11, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Aug 11, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-xj6x-54xc-64j5 published (medium)
Aug 11, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory
Source activity
Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.
- 1×CVE modified by NIST, Modified, LinkAug 11, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
References
3 on the record
- www.axis.com/dam/public/21/37/f2/cve-2026-5304pdf-en-US-543644.pdf
Vendor Advisory, NIST
- nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-5304
NVD
- github.com/advisories/GHSA-xj6x-54xc-64j5
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
Elsewhere on this site
- Axis Communications ABevery CVE for this vendor
- Privilege Escsame class
- CWE-1287other pages naming this weakness
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-5304 is An ACAP configuration file lacks input validation, which could potentially lead to privilege escalation, a medium vulnerability affecting AXIS OS from Axis Communications AB. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. Public exploit evidence is: 9 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 5.7 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.