basicsecurity.net
Proof, not just disclosure.
Threats / Microsoft / CVE-2014-1761
CVE-2014-1761 · EUVD no mirror located · GCVE no mirror located Verified 2026-06-22

Microsoft Word vulnerability

Microsoft Word memory corruption vulnerability enabling remote code execution. Actively exploited in the wild with high exploit probability.

Verdict

Today item — known-exploited.

A buffer overflow in Word processing allows attackers to execute arbitrary code through crafted documents. The vulnerability has been observed in active exploitation campaigns, presenting immediate risk to users opening untrusted files.

CISA KEV Yes · 2022-02-153EPSS 0.77734 (verify live)4
01

Is it exploitable?

— the evidence, ranked above the score
Reported exploitation
20 independent public reports of in-the-wild exploitation are cataloged.Distinct reporting sources (vendor, incident response, government); open them for the underlying claims.
Exploited in the wild
Listed in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog (added 2022-02-15).
CISA KEV ↗Confirmed
Probability (EPSS)
EPSS 0.77734 — modeled likelihood of exploitation activity.EPSS is a daily-changing model output — open the source for today's value.
Severity / affected
Affected: Microsoft, Word. Confirm exact fixed builds in the vendor advisory.
NVD ↗Reported
Weakness (CWE)
Mapped to CWE-119 Memory Buffer Bounds Error — weakness family: Memory safety.CWE assignment from the public NVD record; the weakness class drives how the flaw is exploited.
NVD ↗Reported
02

Who’s exploiting it?

— attribution turns risk into urgency
Attribution not established

No confirmed (advisory-backed) threat-actor attribution is established for this record. Absence of a named actor is not absence of compromise — see Coverage & confidence.

03

Why it matters

— the attack path, told twice: adversary, then board
1

Front door — unauthenticated access narrative 1

Attacker
Craft a malicious Word document containing specially formatted data that triggers a memory corruption flaw during parsing.
Business
Users who open the document unknowingly execute attacker code with their privileges, compromising system integrity and data confidentiality.
2

Keys to the kingdom — privilege/identity takeover narrative 2

Attacker
Distribute the weaponized document via email, file sharing, or web hosting to maximize exposure among target organizations.
Business
Enterprise endpoints become infected, enabling lateral movement, credential theft, and persistent network compromise.
3

Lateral reach — past segmentation narrative 3

Attacker
Establish command and control communication from compromised systems to exfiltrate sensitive data or deploy additional malware.
Business
Intellectual property, financial records, and customer data are stolen or destroyed, resulting in regulatory fines and reputational damage.
04

What to do

— defensible action
  • Remediate per the vendor advisory — confirm the fixed build for your version and verify exposure.1
Say it to the boardA vulnerability with this evidence profile is a defensible budget line, not a backlog ticket — fund the change against the proof above.
05

Coverage & confidence

— what we know, and what we don’t

Established (cited)

  • KEV listing (CISA)
  • EPSS probability (FIRST)
  • 20 reported-exploitation source(s)
  • CWE weakness mapping (NVD)
  • Catalogued by microsoft (CNA)
  • Coverage gaps — stated, not hidden

  • No EUVD / GCVE mirror in feed — single-authority dependency for the identifier.
  • EPSS & exposure are time-varying; verify live at the source.
  • Threat-actor attribution not established from feed data — absence of a name is not absence of compromise.
  • No finder/reporter credit recorded in the public CVE entry — the work behind this find is unattributed.
  • Disclosure & credit2
    Catalogued by microsoftCNA
    Credited with finding itNo finder named in the public CVE record — the work behind this find is unattributed.