Microsoft Word Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Exploited since 2022-03-28. No WAF vendor names it yet.
Microsoft Word 2003 SP3, 2007 SP2 and SP3, and 2010 SP1; Word Viewer; Office Compatibility Pack SP2 and SP3; and Office Web Apps 2010 SP1 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via… More
Microsoft Word 2003 SP3, 2007 SP2 and SP3, and 2010 SP1; Word Viewer; Office Compatibility Pack SP2 and SP3; and Office Web Apps 2010 SP1 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via crafted RTF data, aka "Word RTF 'listoverridecount' Remote Code Execution Vulnerability."
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.1Exploitable with local access, with no privileges and user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker needs local access, or must trick a user into opening something on the machine.Local
- Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionA user has to do something first, such as open a file or click a link.Required
- ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.Unchanged
- Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.High
- Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.High
- Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HAttackers are exploiting this in the wild.
At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.
A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.
Public exploits
None foundNo exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.
Timeline
- 2012-12-12CVE publishedCVE List
- 2022-03-28Added to CISA KEVConfirmed exploitation in the wild
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.