Microsoft Graphics Component Information Disclosure Vulnerability
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 23/100)
- Public proof-of-concept code exists (Exploit-DB); there is no record of exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 2.8% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 86.4% of all records.
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. 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
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
An information disclosure vulnerability exists when the Microsoft Windows Graphics Component improperly handles objects in memory. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could obtain information to further compromise the user’s system. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would have to log on to an affected system and run a specially crafted application. The update addresses the vulnerability by correcting the way in which the Windows Graphics Component handles objects in memory.
- Published
- Aug 14, 2019
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 2.8% · 86th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-125
Report tools
Action score
23
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 22 / 40 · 5.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 2.8%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · microsoft
- 5.5
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N/E:P/RL:O/RC:C
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- Proof of concept exists, no weaponized module
- 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 | office | cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:office |
| microsoft | windows 10 | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_10 |
| microsoft | windows 7 | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_7 |
| microsoft | windows 8.1 | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_8.1 |
| microsoft | windows rt 8.1 | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_rt_8.1 |
| microsoft | windows server 2008 | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008 |
| microsoft | windows server 2012 | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2012 |
| 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 2008all versions
- microsoft windows server 2008r2
- microsoft windows server 2012all versions
- microsoft windows server 2012r2
- microsoft windows server 2016all versions
- microsoft windows server 20161803
- microsoft windows server 20161903
- 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 Microsoft Office 2019 for Mac
- 16.0.0 and later · before publicationaffected
Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1507
- 10.0.0 and later · before publicationaffected
Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1607
- 10.0.0 and later · before publicationaffected
Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1703
- 10.0.0 and later · before publicationaffected
Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1709
- 10.0.0 and later · before publicationaffected
Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1709 for 32-bit Systems
- 10.0.0 and later · before publicationaffected
Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1803
- 10.0.0 and later · before publicationaffected
Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1809
- 10.0.0 and later · before publicationaffected
Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1903 for 32-bit Systems
- 10.0.0 and later · before publicationaffected
Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1903 for ARM64-based Systems
- 10.0.0 and later · before publicationaffected
Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1903 for x64-based Systems
- 10.0.0 and later · before publicationaffected
Microsoft Windows 7
- 6.1.0 and later · before publicationaffected
Same product
microsoft: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2012-0158The (1) ListView, (2) ListView2, (3) TreeView, and (4) TreeView2 ActiveX controls in MSCOMCTL.OCX in the Common Controls in Microsoft OfficeKEV95Now
- CVE-2018-0798Equation Editor in Microsoft Office 2007, Microsoft Office 2010, Microsoft Office 2013, and Microsoft Office 2016 allows a remote code execuKEV94Now
- CVE-2017-11882Microsoft Office 2007 Service Pack 3, Microsoft Office 2010 Service Pack 2, Microsoft Office 2013 Service Pack 1, and Microsoft Office 2016 KEV91Now
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2019-1109Jul 15, 2019 · A spoofing vulnerability exists when Microsoft Office Javascript does not check the validity of the web page making a request to Office docu37Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2019-1112Jul 15, 2019 · An information disclosure vulnerability exists when Microsoft Excel improperly discloses the contents of its memory, aka 'Microsoft Excel In25Monitor
- Later →CVE-2019-1149Aug 14, 2019 · Microsoft Graphics Remote Code Execution Vulnerability39Monitor
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
Proof of concept available
A public proof of concept or detection signature exists. Exploit knowledge is out there; don't delay patching.
Evidence
- Exploit-DB entry ×1
Noroxi does not host or link to exploit code. Metasploit module names and Nuclei template ids are shown (names, not code); Exploit-DB entries and PoC repositories are given as counts only.
| Source | Kind | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Exploit-DB entry | dos | 2019-08-15 |
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.
- Published
- First PoCsame day
- TodayOct 21, 2026+2625 d
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 with local access to the system can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds ReadCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
nvd-secondary
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)
ATT&CK techniques
—
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.