A remote code execution vulnerability exists when Windows Hyper-V on a host server fails to properly validate input from an authenticated us
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 34/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 4.4% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 91.2% of all records.
- Someone on the same network segment can trigger it. Administrator privileges are required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
A remote code execution vulnerability exists when Windows Hyper-V on a host server fails to properly validate input from an authenticated user on a guest operating system, aka "Windows Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This affects Windows 10 Servers, Windows 10, Windows Server 2019. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2019-0551.
- Published
- Jan 8, 2019
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 4.5% · 91th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-20
Report tools
Action score
34
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 33 / 40 · 8.4 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 4.5%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| microsoft | windows 10 | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_10 |
| microsoft | windows server 2016 | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2016 |
| microsoft | windows server 2019 | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2019 |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- microsoft windows server 20161803
- microsoft windows server 2019all versions
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (microsoft). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Microsoft Windows 10
- Version 1803 for 32-bit Systems, Version 1803 for ARM64-based Systems, Version 1803 for x64-based Systems, Version 1809 for 32-bit Systems, Version 1809 for ARM64-based Systems, Version 1809 for x64-based Systemsaffected
Microsoft Windows 10 Servers
- version 1803 (Server Core Installation)affected
Microsoft Windows Server 2019
- (Server Core installation)affected
Same product
microsoft: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2015-2426Buffer underflow in atmfd.dll in the Windows Adobe Type Manager Library in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2, Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, KEV91Now
- CVE-2022-21907HTTP Protocol Stack Remote Code Execution Vulnerability67This week
- CVE-2022-26809Remote Procedure Call Runtime Remote Code Execution Vulnerability66This week
- CVE-2022-34721Windows Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Protocol Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability62This week
- CVE-2022-30216Windows Server Service Tampering Vulnerability62This week
- CVE-2019-1181Remote Desktop Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability62This week
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone on the same network segment can trigger it.
- Administrator privileges are required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
Impact can extend beyond the vulnerable component (scope changes).
- Attack vector
- Adjacent
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-20 · Improper Input ValidationCVSS vector
CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Server Side Include (SSI) InjectionCAPEC-101likelihood: High · High
- Cross Zone ScriptingCAPEC-104likelihood: Medium · High
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Object Relational Mapping InjectionCAPEC-109likelihood: Low · High
- SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter TamperingCAPEC-110likelihood: High · Very High
- Double EncodingCAPEC-120likelihood: Low · Medium
- Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-13likelihood: High · Very High
ATT&CK techniques
- Obfuscated Files or InformationT1027
- Masquerading: Invalid Code SignatureT1036.001
- Steal Web Session CookieT1539
- Subvert Trust Controls: Code SigningT1553.002
- Impair Defenses:Impair Command History LoggingT1562.003
- Hijack Execution Flow:Dynamic Linker HijackingT1574.006
- Hijack Execution Flow:Path Interception by PATH Environment VariableT1574.007
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.