Skip to main content

Remote Desktop Client CVE-2026-69987

| EUVDEUVD-2026-99847 HIGH
Use After Free (CWE-416)
2026-10-13 secure@microsoft.com GHSA-cggc-j463-65r9
7.5
CVSS 3.1 · Vendor: microsoft
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

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

  1. Access
    Lure victim to malicious RDP server
  2. Delivery
    Client initiates connection and receives crafted data
  3. Exploit
    Trigger use-after-free in RDP client
  4. Execution
    Execute arbitrary code as user
  5. Impact
    Compromise client host

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
ASVS 5.0
V15 - Secure Coding and Architecture Memory lifecycle management
MITRE ATT&CK

2 techniques across 2 tactics: Execution, 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 victim to run the Windows Remote Desktop Client and initiate a connection to an attacker-controlled, compromised, or MITM'd RDP server (UI:R); the malicious server then returns crafted data that triggers the use-after-free. No authentication to the client is needed (PR:N), but the following factors LIMIT exploitation: mandatory user interaction (the user must actively start an RDP session to the hostile endpoint), high attack complexity (AC:H) implying the attacker must satisfy specific memory/timing conditions to reliably trigger the UAF, and the fact that this affects the CLIENT rather than a listening service - so there is no path to attack a passive victim who never connects out. Patched builds are enumerated per Windows version in EUVD (e.g., Windows 11 24H2 fixed in 10.0.26100.9711, Server 2025 in 10.0.26100.33650).

Impact

This is a client-side remote code execution flaw (CWE-416 use-after-free) in the Windows Remote Desktop Client, scored CVSS 7.5 with vector AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. The signals are internally consistent and point to a serious-but-not-emergency priority. Impact is total (full C/I/A compromise of the client host, corroborated by SSVC Technical Impact: total), but several factors temper real-world urgency: the CVSS vector requires high attack complexity (AC:H) and user interaction (UI:R), meaning the victim must be induced to connect their RDP client to an attacker-controlled or malicious server, and the UAF likely needs specific timing/heap conditions to win. The exploitation signals all point the same low direction: SSVC lists Exploitation: none and Automatable: no, there is no CISA KEV listing, no public exploit code identified, and no EPSS score was provided in the input. Because this is a CLIENT (not the RDP server/service), the 'over a network' phrasing refers to a malicious server attacking a connecting client, not an unauthenticated internet-facing service - this is an important nuance for prioritization. Net: high-severity due to total impact and ubiquity of Windows, but current exploitation likelihood is low and attacker-driven social engineering is required; patch on a normal-to-prompt cadence rather than as an actively-exploited emergency.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An attacker stands up a malicious RDP server (or compromises/MITMs a legitimate one) and lures a user - via a phishing link, malicious .rdp file, or rogue connection broker - into connecting their Windows Remote Desktop Client to it. The server returns crafted responses that trigger the use-after-free in the client, achieving arbitrary code execution in the context of the connecting user. No public proof-of-concept or exploit code has been identified at time of analysis, and the high attack complexity (AC:H) means reliable exploitation requires winning specific memory-state conditions.

This Week Schedule remediation this week. Why: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9).
Patch available 0.6% exploitation probability (EPSS)

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

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Oct 14, 2026

Outbound RDP sessions from the Windows Remote Desktop Client can be turned against the client itself: when a user connects to an attacker-controlled, compromised, or man-in-the-middle'd RDP server, crafted response data triggers a use-after-free (CWE-416) that can lead to code execution on the victim's machine, with total technical impact if the memory corruption is reliably steered. The attacker needs no credentials on the client (PR:N) and can operate remotely over the network (AV:N), but exploitation is gated by mandatory user interaction (the user must actively initiate the session, UI:R) and high attack complexity (AC:H) reflecting the precision required to trigger and control the freed allocation. Microsoft rates this CVSS 7.5 and has released vendor patches; there is no public exploit identified at time of analysis and no evidence of exploitation - CISA's SSVC assessment records Exploitation: none and Automatable: no.

RemediationAI

Apply the vendor patch - Microsoft lists this as fixed in the monthly update, with per-branch target builds: Windows 11 24H2 → 10.0.26100.9711, 23H2 → 10.0.22631.7652, 25H2 → 10.0.26200.9711, 26H2 → 10.0.26300.9711, 26H1 → 10.0.28000.3231; Windows 10 21H2/22H2 → 10.0.19044.7807, 1809 → 10.0.17763.9376, 1607 → 10.0.14393.9612; Windows Server 2025 → 10.0.26100.33650, 2022 → 10.0.20348.5761, 2019 → 10.0.17763.9376, 2016 → 10.0.14393.9612, 2012 → 6.2.9200.26434, 2012 R2 → 6.3.9600.23470 (see https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-69987). Because the defect is in the client and requires the user to connect outward, the most effective compensating control is to constrain where the client may connect: enforce egress filtering for TCP/UDP 3389 so clients can only reach approved RDP gateways or jump hosts, and block RDP to untrusted internet endpoints - the trade-off is lost ad-hoc remote access to external hosts and possible breakage of BYOD/contractor workflows, so pair it with an approved gateway rather than a blanket deny. Where the client is not operationally required, removing or blocking launch of mstsc.exe and the Remote Desktop Store app eliminates the attack surface outright, at the cost of no interactive RDP from those endpoints. Users should be trained not to open .rdp files or connect to RDP hosts from unsolicited links/mail, since UI:R is the required trigger, and EDR should alert on RDP client crashes or anomalous child processes spawned from mstsc.exe. There is no reported active exploitation (SSVC Exploitation: none), so remediation can follow normal patch-cycle prioritization, though client-heavy environments (support desks, admins, remote workers) should treat it as elevated.

Affected VersionsENISA

Windows Server 2012 (Server Core installation) 6.2.9200.0 <6.2.9200.26434
Windows Server 2019 10.0.17763.0 <10.0.17763.9376
Windows 10 Version 1809 10.0.17763.0 <10.0.17763.9376
Windows Server 2012 R2 (Server Core installation) 6.3.9600.0 <6.3.9600.23470
Windows Server 2012 6.2.9200.0 <6.2.9200.26434
Windows 11 Version 23H2 10.0.22631.0 <10.0.22631.7652
Windows 10 Version 1607 10.0.14393.0 <10.0.14393.9612
Windows Server 2016 10.0.14393.0 <10.0.14393.9612
Windows 11 Version 26H2 10.0.26300.0 <10.0.26300.9711
Windows Server 2012 R2 6.3.9600.0 <6.3.9600.23470
Windows Server 2022 10.0.20348.0 <10.0.20348.5761
Windows Server 2025 (Server Core installation) 10.0.26100.0 <10.0.26100.33650
Windows 11 Version 25H2 10.0.26200.0 <10.0.26200.9711
Windows 10 Version 21H2 10.0.19044.0 <10.0.19044.7807
Windows Server 2025 10.0.26100.0 <10.0.26100.33650
Windows 10 Version 22H2 10.0.19045.0 <10.0.19044.7807
Windows Server 2016 (Server Core installation) 10.0.14393.0 <10.0.14393.9612
Windows 11 Version 24H2 10.0.26100.0 <10.0.26100.9711
Windows Server 2019 (Server Core installation) 10.0.17763.0 <10.0.17763.9376
Windows 11 version 26H1 10.0.28000.0 <10.0.28000.3231

Affected Packages

euvd windows_10_version_1607 fix: 10.0.14393.9612
euvd windows_10_version_1809 fix: 10.0.17763.9376
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_2012 fix: 6.2.9200.26434
euvd windows_server_2012_r2 fix: 6.3.9600.23470
euvd windows_server_2012_r2_server_core_installation fix: 6.3.9600.23470
euvd windows_server_2012_server_core_installation fix: 6.2.9200.26434
euvd windows_server_2016 fix: 10.0.14393.9612
euvd windows_server_2016_server_core_installation fix: 10.0.14393.9612
euvd windows_server_2019 fix: 10.0.17763.9376
euvd windows_server_2019_server_core_installation fix: 10.0.17763.9376
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 20 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 root cause is CWE-416, a use-after-free in the Windows Remote Desktop Client (mstsc.exe and the underlying RDP client stack). Unlike most RDP CVEs, the vulnerable component is the client, not the RDP service listener: the flaw is reached while parsing/processing data returned by the RDP server during connection setup and session handling - the client frees a memory object and then dereferences it again when handling subsequent server-supplied data. This inverts the usual threat model, since there is no listening socket on the victim to probe; the attacker must instead act as (or interpose on) the RDP server side via a malicious host, a compromised server, or a MITM position on the user's outbound RDP path. Microsoft's tags (Use After Free, Memory Corruption, Denial Of Service) and the assessed vector (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) indicate that the same primitive can crash the client and, in the code-execution case, yield high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact within the client's security context, making the affected user's session and any credentials/data handled by the RDP client valuable targets. The high attack complexity and required user action are the primary practical brakes on weaponization, consistent with the SSVC 'Automatable: no' rating.

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

Client connects over a network to a malicious server (AV:N) with user action required (UI:R); UAF needs specific memory conditions (AC:H); no prior auth (PR:N); code execution yields full C/I/A on the client host.

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

Primary rating from Vendor (microsoft).

CVSS VectorVendor: microsoft

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

Lifecycle Timeline

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

DescriptionCVE.org

Use after free in Remote Desktop Client allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

Executive ViewAI

Why It Matters

A memory-corruption vulnerability in Microsoft's Windows Remote Desktop Client (CVE-2026-69987, CVSS 7.5) allows a malicious or compromised RDP server to execute code on the machine of any employee who initiates an outbound connection to it, giving an attacker potential full control of that endpoint. Because the affected client ships with Windows by default and is used broadly for vendor, partner, and remote-support access, the exposure spans the general workforce rather than a single business unit or data-center tier. Exploitation requires the user to start the session and is not currently observed in the public threat landscape, so the immediate likelihood is limited while the potential operational and data-integrity consequences remain serious.

Business Impact: High
Compensating Controls

Apply vendor patch.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.6%
Top 54% exploitable
Prevalence
Ubiquitous
Remote Desktop Client ships in all supported Windows client and server editions
Vendor Status
Publicly Disclosed:No
Exploited:No
Latest Software Release:Exploitation Unlikely
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 0.6%
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
Open
Automatable
No
Human Impact
High
Technical Impact
Total

Priority Score

39
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: +1
CVSS: +38
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

Use-after-free vulnerabilities occur when a program continues to access memory through a pointer after that memory has been deallocated.

Memory corruption occurs when a program writes data beyond the boundaries of allocated memory regions or accesses memory in unintended ways, violating the integrity of the process's address space.

Denial of Service attacks render applications or systems unavailable by overwhelming resources or triggering failure conditions.

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