Skip to main content
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Access
    Obtain low-priv foothold in Hyper-V guest
  2. Exploit
    Abuse improper access control flaw
  3. Execution
    Execute code crossing guest-to-host boundary
  4. Impact
    Compromise hypervisor host and co-located guests

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
ASVS 5.0
V8 - Authorization Authorization logic validation
MITRE ATT&CK

1 technique across 1 tactic: Privilege Escalation

The technique list with ATT&CK links and the kill-chain view is part of the Basic plan and up.

Exploitation Conditions

Exploitation requires the attacker to already have low-privileged authenticated code-execution capability inside a Hyper-V guest virtual machine on an affected host - the vector is local (AV:L) with PR:L, so there is no remote or unauthenticated path. The Scope:Changed metric indicates the flaw lets code escape the guest and affect the host partition, meaning the primary at-risk deployments are hosts running untrusted, multi-tenant, or attacker-reachable guests. Limiting factors: the host must have the Hyper-V role enabled with at least one guest the attacker can run code in; no user interaction is needed (UI:N), but a guest foothold is a prerequisite, which constrains exploitation to environments where an attacker can already run code in a VM.

Impact

This is a genuine high-priority issue rather than an inflated CVSS score. The CVSS:3.1 vector (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H, base 8.8) describes a low-complexity, low-privilege local attack with a SCOPE CHANGE and full C/I/A impact - the signature pattern of a Hyper-V guest-to-host escape, where an authenticated low-privileged attacker inside a guest VM breaks out to compromise the hypervisor host. That scope change is what elevates an otherwise local, authenticated bug to 8.8. However, several real-world risk signals are MISSING from the input and must not be assumed: no EPSS score is provided, so exploitation probability cannot be quantified; there is no CISA KEV listing (no confirmed active exploitation); and no public POC is referenced. The only reference is the Microsoft MSRC advisory stub with no CVSS or CWE populated by NVD. Note also a data conflict: the input Tag labels this 'Information Disclosure,' but both the description ('execute code locally') and the vector (I:H/A:H) indicate code execution with integrity and availability impact - the tag appears mislabeled and should not drive triage. Net assessment: credible, patch-worthy virtualization-escape risk in a widely deployed product, but currently no evidence of in-the-wild exploitation, so it ranks below actively-exploited KEV items while remaining a priority for any host running untrusted or multi-tenant guests.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An attacker who already has the ability to run code inside a Hyper-V guest VM (e.g., a low-privileged user on a tenant VM or a compromised guest) abuses the improper access control to execute arbitrary code that crosses the virtualization boundary into the host partition. Because the CVSS scope is Changed, successful exploitation compromises the hypervisor host and, by extension, other guests on the same host. No public exploit code is identified at time of analysis, and the attack requires a pre-existing authenticated foothold on a guest rather than remote network access.

This Week Schedule remediation this week. Why: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9).
Patch available 0.3% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Oct 13, 2026

Code execution that crosses the guest-to-host boundary in Microsoft Windows Hyper-V can be triggered by an authenticated, low-privileged attacker who already runs code inside a guest virtual machine, letting them escape the VM and affect the host partition. The weakness is an access-control flaw in the hypervisor (CVSS 3.1 base 8.8, AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H), so it is a local privilege and tenancy escape rather than a remotely reachable path, and a guest foothold is a hard prerequisite. No public exploit has been identified at time of analysis, but the risk is concentrated on hosts running untrusted, multi-tenant, or otherwise attacker-reachable guests.

RemediationAI

The primary action is to apply the security update published in the Microsoft Security Response Center advisory at https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-105733; the input data names patch availability through this vendor advisory but does not specify an exact fixed build, so the precise fix version must be taken from that guide rather than assumed. Where immediate patching of every host is not possible, compensating controls should target the attacker prerequisite rather than generic hardening: isolate untrusted or multi-tenant guest workloads onto dedicated hosts so that a guest escape cannot reach a partition hosting sensitive workloads (trade-off: higher infrastructure cost and more hosts to manage), restrict which accounts and services are permitted to execute code inside guests so that a low-privileged guest foothold is harder to obtain (trade-off: operational friction for legitimate admin and CI workloads), and disable optional guest-to-host channels that are not required in production, such as Hyper-V Sockets, PowerShell Direct, and unused integration services, since these expand the mediated attack surface (trade-off: loss of convenient host-to-guest management, backup, and monitoring functionality). Disabling nested virtualization for untrusted guests further reduces the composition of guest-controlled hypervisor code at the boundary, but it prevents running containers, VBS-based features, or secondary hypervisors inside those guests. After patching, monitor host and hypervisor event logs for anomalous guest-to-host operations and re-audit which guests are permitted to run untrusted code, because the exploit path requires exactly that foothold.

Affected VersionsENISA

Windows 10 Version 21H2 10.0.19044.0 <10.0.19044.7807
Windows Server 2025 (Server Core installation) 10.0.26100.0 <10.0.26100.33650
Windows Server 2025 10.0.26100.0 <10.0.26100.33650
Windows 11 Version 26H2 10.0.26300.0 <10.0.26300.9711
Windows 11 version 26H1 10.0.28000.0 <10.0.28000.3231
Windows 10 Version 22H2 10.0.19045.0 <10.0.19044.7807
Windows 11 Version 23H2 10.0.22631.0 <10.0.22631.7652
Windows Server 2022 10.0.20348.0 <10.0.20348.5761
Windows 11 Version 25H2 10.0.26200.0 <10.0.26200.9711
Windows 11 Version 24H2 10.0.26100.0 <10.0.26100.9711

Affected Packages

euvd windows_10_version_21h2 fix: 10.0.19044.7807
euvd windows_10_version_22h2 fix: 10.0.19044.7807
euvd windows_11_version_23h2 fix: 10.0.22631.7652
euvd windows_11_version_24h2 fix: 10.0.26100.9711
euvd windows_11_version_25h2 fix: 10.0.26200.9711
euvd windows_11_version_26h1 fix: 10.0.28000.3231
euvd windows_11_version_26h2 fix: 10.0.26300.9711
euvd windows_server_2022 fix: 10.0.20348.5761
euvd windows_server_2025 fix: 10.0.26100.33650
euvd windows_server_2025_server_core_installation fix: 10.0.26100.33650

Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affects your stack

Affects 10 packages in euvd

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

Hyper-V is Microsoft's Type-1 hypervisor, and the security model depends on strictly enforced isolation between the guest virtual machines and the host (root) partition; guests communicate with the host through mediated surfaces such as VMBus, hypercalls, integration services, and device emulation. The root cause class here is improper access control (CWE-284-equivalent), meaning a guest-initiated request or resource access is not sufficiently validated against the caller's privilege level, so an operation intended for the host or restricted to a different partition can be performed from a low-privileged guest context. The vector AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H is instructive: AV:L and PR:L place the attacker inside a guest VM running as a low-privileged user (authenticated, per the PR:L metric), UI:N means nothing has to be done by a user on the host, and the Scope:Changed metric with high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact means the successful exploit alters objects in a security scope beyond the vulnerable component - the host partition - rather than the guest itself. No CWE identifier or CPE strings were supplied in the input data, so exact affected Windows builds and Hyper-V feature sets must be resolved from the referenced MSRC update guide, which is the only vendor source in the dataset.

Know when Windows gets its next vulnerability

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Vendor (microsoft) PRIMARY 8.8 HIGH
AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
vuln.today AI 8.8 HIGH

Local authenticated guest foothold gives AV:L/PR:L; guest-to-host escape yields S:C with full C:H/I:H/A:H on the host.

3.1 AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
4.0 AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

Primary rating from Vendor (microsoft).

CVSS VectorVendor: microsoft

Attack Vector
Local
Attack Complexity
Low
Privileges Required
Low
User Interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Lifecycle Timeline

2
Patch available
Oct 13, 2026 - 20:20 EUVD
CVE Published
Oct 13, 2026 - 19:18 nvd
HIGH 8.8

DescriptionCVE.org

Improper access control in Windows Hyper-V allows an authorized attacker to execute code locally.

Executive ViewAI

Why It Matters

Microsoft Windows Hyper-V hosts that run untrusted, multi-tenant, or otherwise attacker-reachable guest VMs face a high-severity isolation risk: a successful guest-to-host escape could let an authenticated low-privileged guest user compromise the host and co-located workloads. Because no vendor-released patch is identified at time of analysis and no public exploit has been identified, leadership should treat this as a patch-gap risk concentrated in virtualized and cloud environments, with potential data exposure, service disruption, and tenant trust impact.

Business Impact: High
Compensating Controls

No vendor-released patch identified at time of analysis; interim mitigations include restricting guest administrative privileges, isolating or segregating untrusted/multi-tenant guests, disabling unnecessary integration services and nested virtualization where possible, enforcing host firewall and network segmentation, applying least privilege, enabling enhanced Hyper-V and host logging, monitoring for guest-to-host anomalies, and migrating high-risk workloads to dedicated hosts.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.3%
Top 75% exploitable
Prevalence
High
Hyper-V ships in Windows Server, Windows Pro, and Azure fabric
Threat Intel
1
1 sources
Vendor Status
Publicly Disclosed:No
Exploited:No
Latest Software Release:Exploitation Less Likely
Data Quality
5 sources
Confidence: Medium

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity HIGH
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.3%
Patch available Yes
Active threat No
Deciding rule
HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9)
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision
Scheduled
Exploitation
None
System Exposure· derived
Small
Automatable
No
Human Impact
High
Technical Impact
Total

Priority Score

44
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +44
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

Authentication bypass attacks exploit flaws in the verification mechanisms that control access to systems and applications.

CVE-2025-52691 CRITICAL POC
10.0 Dec 29

Unauthenticated remote code execution in SmarterTools SmarterMail lets an attacker upload arbitrary files to any locatio

CVE-2019-0803 HIGH POC
7.8 Apr 09

Windows Win32k fails to properly handle objects in memory, allowing local privilege escalation exploited in the wild in

CVE-2020-1472 MEDIUM POC
5.5 Aug 17

A privilege escalation vulnerability (CVSS 5.5). Risk factors: actively exploited (KEV-listed), EPSS 94% exploitation pr

CVE-2025-33053 HIGH POC
8.8 Jun 10

Windows Internet Shortcut Files (.url) contain an external control vulnerability (CVE-2025-33053, CVSS 8.8) that enables

CVE-2025-33073 HIGH POC
8.8 Jun 10

Windows SMB contains an improper access control vulnerability (CVE-2025-33073, CVSS 8.8) enabling authenticated attacker

CVE-2013-10047 CRITICAL POC
9.3 Aug 01

An unrestricted file upload vulnerability exists in MiniWeb HTTP Server <= Build 300 that allows unauthenticated remote

CVE-2012-10030 CRITICAL POC
9.3 Aug 05

FreeFloat FTP Server contains multiple critical design flaws that allow unauthenticated remote attackers to upload arbit

CVE-2025-34101 CRITICAL POC
9.3 Jul 10

Serviio Media Server versions 1.4 through 1.8 on Windows contain an unauthenticated command injection in the /rest/actio

CVE-2025-34095 CRITICAL POC
9.3 Jul 10

Mako Server versions 2.5 and 2.6 contain an unauthenticated OS command injection via the tutorial interface at examples/

CVE-2025-11953 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Nov 03

React Native Metro Development Server binds to external interfaces by default and contains an OS command injection endpo

CVE-2026-96951 HIGH POC
8.8 Oct 13

Command injection in the Windows Shell lets remote, unauthenticated attackers bypass a Windows security feature and then

CVE-2025-24054 MEDIUM POC
6.5 Mar 11

External control of file name or path in Windows NTLM allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy