basicsecurity.net
Proof, not just disclosure.
Threats / Microsoft / CVE-2016-7193
CVE-2016-7193 · EUVD no mirror located · GCVE no mirror located Verified 2026-06-22

Microsoft Office vulnerability

Microsoft Office memory corruption vulnerability enabling remote code execution. CVSS not assigned; EPSS 0.74 indicates high exploitation likelihood. Actively exploited in the wild.

Verdict

Today item — known-exploited.

A memory corruption flaw in Microsoft Office allows unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code by crafting malicious documents. Active exploitation demonstrates immediate risk to organizations relying on Office for document processing.

CISA KEV Yes · 2022-03-033EPSS 0.57705 (verify live)4
01

Is it exploitable?

— the evidence, ranked above the score
Reported exploitation
3 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 0.57705 — 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 exploiting the memory corruption flaw.
Business
Employees receive and open the document, triggering code execution on their systems.
2

Keys to the kingdom — privilege/identity takeover narrative 2

Attacker
I distribute the weaponized document via email or file-sharing platforms to target users.
Business
Initial compromise establishes a foothold for lateral movement and persistence within the network.
3

Lateral reach — past segmentation narrative 3

Attacker
I execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the user running Office.
Business
Attackers gain access to sensitive data, intellectual property, and credentials stored on compromised endpoints.
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)
  • 3 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.