Skip to main content

Windows RMCAST CVE-2026-69789

| EUVDEUVD-2026-100065 HIGH
Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122)
2026-10-13 secure@microsoft.com GHSA-cwvf-mrqx-8655
7.5
CVSS 3.1 · Vendor: microsoft
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

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

  1. Access
    Gain foothold on adjacent network segment
  2. Delivery
    Craft malicious RMCAST/multicast packets
  3. Exploit
    Trigger heap overflow in RMCAST driver
  4. Execution
    Groom heap and execute code
  5. Impact
    Full system compromise

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
ASVS 5.0
V15 - Secure Coding and Architecture Heap buffer bounds checking
MITRE ATT&CK

1 technique across 1 tactic: Execution

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 be on the same adjacent network (AV:A) as the target and requires the Reliable Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST, which services PGM/reliable-multicast traffic) to be reachable and processing attacker-supplied multicast packets. Exploitation is unauthenticated (PR:N) and needs no user interaction (UI:N), but is materially limited by high attack complexity (AC:H): successful heap-overflow exploitation depends on specific memory-layout/heap-grooming conditions that cannot be reliably automated, consistent with SSVC Automatable:no. The adjacency requirement means internet-based, remote-unauthenticated mass exploitation is not possible - an attacker must first obtain a position on the local/broadcast or multicast-reachable network segment.

Impact

This is a moderate-priority vulnerability rather than a top-tier emergency, despite affecting ubiquitous Windows platforms. The CVSS 3.1 vector (AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H, base 7.5) reflects total compromise potential (C:H/I:H/A:H) but is meaningfully constrained by two factors: the adjacent-network attack vector (AV:A) means the attacker must be on the same logical/physical network segment rather than exploiting across the open internet, and high attack complexity (AC:H) indicates that reliable heap-overflow exploitation requires overcoming non-trivial conditions such as memory-layout grooming. These constraints are strongly corroborated by CISA's SSVC decision framework, which rates Exploitation as 'none' (no observed or proof-of-concept activity) and Automatable as 'no' (cannot be reliably scripted/wormed at scale), even while confirming Technical Impact as 'total.' No EPSS score was provided in the input, and the CVE is NOT listed in CISA KEV; no public POC is referenced. The signals are therefore consistent rather than conflicting: a high-impact but hard-to-exploit, adjacency-limited, currently-unexploited flaw. The practical risk is targeted, skilled attacks against reachable network segments - not widespread automated exploitation. Priority should be driven by the ubiquity of Windows and the total-impact ceiling, moderated by the adjacency requirement and high complexity.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An attacker positioned on the same local/adjacent network segment as a vulnerable Windows host sends specially crafted Reliable Multicast (PGM/RMCAST) traffic that triggers a heap-based buffer overflow in the RMCAST driver. By carefully shaping heap memory, the attacker achieves arbitrary code execution in the context of the driver, leading to full system compromise. No public exploit identified at time of analysis, and the high attack complexity (AC:H) means reliable exploitation requires significant skill and favorable memory conditions.

This Week Schedule remediation this week. Why: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9).
Patch available 0.4% exploitation probability (EPSS)

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

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Oct 14, 2026

A heap-based buffer overflow in the Windows Reliable Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) allows an unauthenticated attacker positioned on the same adjacent network segment to execute arbitrary code on affected Windows 10, Windows 11, and Windows Server hosts. The assessed vector (CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H, 7.5) reflects total loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability if exploitation succeeds, but high attack complexity and the adjacency prerequisite mean exploitation depends on favorable heap layout/memory-grooming conditions and cannot be reliably automated (SSVC Exploitation: none, Automatable: no). There is no public exploit identified at time of analysis and no evidence of active exploitation; a vendor patch is available from Microsoft, making timely but non-emergency patching the appropriate response.

RemediationAI

Vendor-released patch: apply the Microsoft security update for CVE-2026-69789 so that each host reaches at least the corrected build listed for its branch - for example 10.0.19044.7725 for Windows 10 21H2, 10.0.19045.7725 for Windows 10 22H2, 10.0.22631.7582 for Windows 11 23H2, 10.0.26100.9445 for Windows 11 24H2, 10.0.26200.9445 for Windows 11 25H2, 10.0.20348.5622 for Windows Server 2022, and 10.0.26100.33438 for Windows Server 2025, per the MSRC Update Guide at https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-69789. Because exploitation requires an attacker to reach the host over an adjacent network, prioritize patching of systems on flat or shared L2 segments - server farms, VDI/hypervisor host networks, lab and OT networks, and any environment using PGM-based reliable multicast (for example MSMQ multicast or Windows Deployment Services). Where patching must be deferred, the most effective compensating control is to block or filter PGM (IP protocol 113) and other multicast traffic from untrusted segments at L2/L3 boundaries and to enable multicast/broadcast storm and port-security controls on access switches; the trade-off is that this breaks legitimate RMCAST-dependent features such as MSMQ multicast and WDS multicast imaging, so it should be scoped to hosts and VLANs that do not consume those services. Segmenting adjacent systems into separate VLANs with unicast-only reachability reduces the attack surface at the cost of additional network complexity, and host firewalls can drop inbound protocol-113 traffic, though on hosts that legitimately use PGM this will interrupt reliable multicast delivery. Disabling the RMCAST driver outright is not a supported or generally available option on current Windows builds and would degrade related multicast functionality, so patching remains the primary fix; note that no public exploit code is known at time of analysis and the high attack complexity limits reliable weaponization, which supports a risk-based patch cycle rather than emergency change.

Affected VersionsENISA

Windows 10 Version 21H2 10.0.19044.0 <10.0.19044.7725
Windows 11 version 26H1 10.0.28000.0 <10.0.28000.2954
Windows 10 Version 1607 10.0.14393.0 <10.0.14393.9512
Windows Server 2012 (Server Core installation) 6.2.9200.0 <6.2.9200.26349
Windows 10 Version 1809 10.0.17763.0 <10.0.17763.9245
Windows Server 2016 (Server Core installation) 10.0.14393.0 <10.0.14393.9512
Windows Server 2025 (Server Core installation) 10.0.26100.0 <10.0.26100.33438
Windows Server 2019 10.0.17763.0 <10.0.17763.9245
Windows Server 2019 (Server Core installation) 10.0.17763.0 <10.0.17763.9245
Windows 11 Version 24H2 10.0.26100.0 <10.0.26100.9445
Windows Server 2022 10.0.20348.0 <10.0.20348.5622
Windows Server 2012 R2 (Server Core installation) 6.3.9600.0 <6.3.9600.23398
Windows 10 Version 22H2 10.0.19045.0 <10.0.19045.7725
Windows 11 Version 23H2 10.0.22631.0 <10.0.22631.7582
Windows Server 2025 10.0.26100.0 <10.0.26100.33438
Windows Server 2012 6.2.9200.0 <6.2.9200.26349
Windows Server 2012 R2 6.3.9600.0 <6.3.9600.23398
Windows 11 Version 25H2 10.0.26200.0 <10.0.26200.9445
Windows Server 2016 10.0.14393.0 <10.0.14393.9512

Affected Packages

euvd windows_10_version_1607 fix: 10.0.14393.9512
euvd windows_10_version_1809 fix: 10.0.17763.9245
euvd windows_10_version_21h2 fix: 10.0.19044.7725
euvd windows_10_version_22h2 fix: 10.0.19045.7725
euvd windows_11_version_23h2 fix: 10.0.22631.7582
euvd windows_11_version_24h2 fix: 10.0.26100.9445
euvd windows_11_version_25h2 fix: 10.0.26200.9445
euvd windows_11_version_26h1 fix: 10.0.28000.2954
euvd windows_server_2012 fix: 6.2.9200.26349
euvd windows_server_2012_r2 fix: 6.3.9600.23398
euvd windows_server_2012_r2_server_core_installation fix: 6.3.9600.23398
euvd windows_server_2012_server_core_installation fix: 6.2.9200.26349
euvd windows_server_2016 fix: 10.0.14393.9512
euvd windows_server_2016_server_core_installation fix: 10.0.14393.9512
euvd windows_server_2019 fix: 10.0.17763.9245
euvd windows_server_2019_server_core_installation fix: 10.0.17763.9245
euvd windows_server_2022 fix: 10.0.20348.5622
euvd windows_server_2025 fix: 10.0.26100.33438
euvd windows_server_2025_server_core_installation fix: 10.0.26100.33438

Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affects your stack

Affects 19 packages in euvd

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

Technical ContextAI · show details

The vulnerability is a classic CWE-122 heap-based buffer overflow in rmcast.sys, the kernel-mode Windows Reliable Multicast Transport Driver. RMCAST implements the Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) protocol (IP protocol number 113), which provides reliable, ordered multicast delivery used by components such as MSMQ multicast messaging and Windows Deployment Services multicast transmissions. Because the driver parses attacker-supplied multicast datagrams and stores parsed state in dynamically allocated, non-paged pool memory, a malformed or oversized PGM/multicast packet can overrun a heap allocation, corrupting adjacent pool metadata or object pointers and potentially yielding kernel-mode code execution in the context of the target system. The root cause is improper bounds validation on a length or count field derived from network input before a heap write, and successful exploitation generally requires precise heap grooming and control of surrounding allocations - hence the AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N vector, which permits an unauthenticated adjacent-network attacker who requires no user interaction but must overcome unreliable heap-shaping conditions. Affected CPE/version data spans the full supported Windows client and server matrix, including Windows 10 1607 through 22H2, Windows 11 23H2 through 26H1, and Windows Server 2012, 2012 R2, 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025 (including Server Core installations), indicating the flawed driver code is shared across the Windows servicing branches rather than isolated to a single build.

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 7.5 HIGH
AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
vuln.today AI 7.5 HIGH

Adjacent multicast reachability gives AV:A; unreliable heap-grooming gives AC:H; no auth or interaction needed (PR:N/UI:N); driver code execution yields total C:H/I:H/A:H.

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

Primary rating from Vendor (microsoft).

CVSS VectorVendor: microsoft

Attack Vector
Adjacent
Attack Complexity
High
Privileges Required
None
User Interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Lifecycle Timeline

2
Patch available
Oct 13, 2026 - 20:20 EUVD
CVE Published
Oct 13, 2026 - 19:18 cve.org
HIGH 7.5

DescriptionCVE.org

Heap-based buffer overflow in Reliable Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over an adjacent network.

Executive ViewAI

Why It Matters

A heap-based buffer overflow in Microsoft's Windows Reliable Multicast Transport Driver (RMCAST) exposes Windows 10, Windows 11, and Windows Server hosts to unauthenticated remote code execution by an attacker who already has a presence on the same network segment. Successful exploitation would give an adversary complete control of the affected host - full loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability - making it a potential staging point for lateral movement into higher-value systems. Because no public exploit code exists and high attack complexity limits reliable automation, leadership should treat this as a prioritized scheduled patch action rather than an emergency response, while still closing it out within the current patch cycle.

Business Impact: High
Compensating Controls

Apply vendor patch.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.4%
Top 66% exploitable
Prevalence
Ubiquitous
Microsoft Windows client and server editions, present in nearly all environments
Threat Intel
1
1 sources
Vendor Status
Publicly Disclosed:No
Exploited:No
Latest Software Release:Exploitation Unlikely
Data Quality
4 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 0.4%
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
Controlled
Automatable
No
Human Impact
High
Technical Impact
Total

Priority Score

38
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +38
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

A buffer overflow occurs when a program writes more data to a memory buffer than it was allocated to hold, causing the excess data to spill into adjacent memory regions.

A heap overflow occurs when a program writes data beyond the bounds of a buffer allocated in the heap memory region.

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-2025-13315 CRITICAL POC
9.3 Nov 19

Twonky Server 8.5.2 on Linux and Windows allows unauthenticated access to the admin log file through a web service API b

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-2025-13316 HIGH POC
8.2 Nov 19

Twonky Server 8.5.2 uses hard-coded cryptographic keys for encrypting the administrator password. Combined with the cred

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

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