basicsecurity.net
Proof, not just disclosure.
Threats / Microsoft / CVE-2024-38189
CVE-2024-38189 · EUVD no mirror located · GCVE no mirror located Verified 2026-06-22

Microsoft Project vulnerability

Microsoft Project remote code execution vulnerability via malicious file. Improper input validation (CWE-20) allows attackers to execute arbitrary code through crafted project files.

Verdict

Today item — known-exploited.

Active exploitation observed in the wild. Attackers deliver malicious Project files to execute code on target systems. Organizations using Project require immediate patching to prevent compromise.

CISA KEV Yes · 2024-08-133EPSS 0.07871 (verify live)4
01

Is it exploitable?

— the evidence, ranked above the score
Reported exploitation
6 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 2024-08-13).
CISA KEV ↗Confirmed
Probability (EPSS)
EPSS 0.07871 — modeled likelihood of exploitation activity.EPSS is a daily-changing model output — open the source for today's value.
Severity / affected
Affected: Microsoft, Project. Confirm exact fixed builds in the vendor advisory.
NVD ↗Reported
Weakness (CWE)
Mapped to CWE-20 Improper Input Validation.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 Microsoft Project file with embedded code that bypasses input validation.
Business
Attackers gain initial access to systems running Project, establishing a foothold for lateral movement or data theft.
2

Keys to the kingdom — privilege/identity takeover narrative 2

Attacker
I distribute the file via email or file-sharing platforms, targeting Project users in the organization.
Business
Employees unknowingly open the file, triggering code execution with the privileges of the Project application.
3

Lateral reach — past segmentation narrative 3

Attacker
I execute arbitrary commands on the compromised system to install backdoors or exfiltrate sensitive project data.
Business
Confidential project information, intellectual property, and internal communications become exposed to unauthorized parties.
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)
  • 6 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.