Every applicability statement published about this vulnerability, kept as each source wrote it rather than merged into one verdict. Where sources disagree, both positions are shown.
A statement that names no version covers the whole product, which is not the same as your version falling inside a range. Orderings marked best effort come from schemes with no published comparison algorithm; exact ones follow a published specification.
Precedence decides which claim wins when two sources describe the same product over the same version range. It is a property of the source, not of the claim, and changing it re-ranks the data without re-reading a single document.
| Product | Status | Versions | Remediation | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n/a/Some Dahua IP Camera, Video Intercom, PTZ Dome Camera, Thermal Camera devices n/a · Some Dahua IP Camera, Video Intercom, PTZ Dome Camera, Thermal Camera devices | affected | Dahua IP Camera devices IPC-HX3XXX, IPC-HX5XXX, and IPC-HUM7XXX, Video Intercom devices VTO75X95X, VTO65XXX, and VTH542XH, PTZ Dome Camera SD1A1, SD22, SD49, SD50, SD52C, and SD6AL, Thermal TPC-BF1241, TPC-BF2221, TPC-SD2221, TPC-BF5XXX, TPC-SD8X21, and T | none available | cve_cna |
A claim with no version range is shown as written rather than expanded: a government catalog naming only a vendor and product is a real statement at zero granularity, and inventing bounds for it would put precision in the record that the source never offered.