basicsecurity.net
Proof, not just disclosure.
Threats / Microsoft / CVE-2015-1642
CVE-2015-1642 · EUVD no mirror located · GCVE no mirror located Verified 2026-06-22

Microsoft Office vulnerability

Microsoft Office memory corruption vulnerability allows remote code execution through crafted documents. Actively exploited in the wild.

Verdict

Today item — known-exploited.

A memory corruption flaw in Microsoft Office enables attackers to execute arbitrary code by delivering malicious documents to users. The vulnerability has demonstrated real-world exploitation and poses significant risk to organizations relying on Office for document processing.

CISA KEV Yes · 2022-03-033EPSS 0.53213 (verify live)4
01

Is it exploitable?

— the evidence, ranked above the score
Reported exploitation
4 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 2022-03-03).
CISA KEV ↗Confirmed
Probability (EPSS)
EPSS 0.53213 — modeled likelihood of exploitation activity.EPSS is a daily-changing model output — open the source for today's value.
Severity / affected
Affected: Microsoft, Office. 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
I craft a malicious Office document designed to trigger a memory corruption condition.
Business
Attackers gain a delivery mechanism for code execution targeting the broad Office user base.
2

Keys to the kingdom — privilege/identity takeover narrative 2

Attacker
I distribute the document via email or web hosting to target users.
Business
User trust in document formats is exploited; opening files becomes a direct attack vector.
3

Lateral reach — past segmentation narrative 3

Attacker
I execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the Office application and logged-in user.
Business
Attackers establish initial system compromise, enabling lateral movement and data exfiltration.
4

Data at risk — exfiltration narrative 4

Attacker
I maintain persistence and expand access across the compromised environment.
Business
Organizations face prolonged breach dwell time, increased forensic complexity, and expanded incident scope.
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)
  • 4 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.