Microsoft Windows RDP can bypass the Windows lock screen
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 31/100)
- 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: 1.3% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 70.1% 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.
- Severity is disputed: the assigning authority (CNA) scores it 5.3, NVD 7.8.
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 vulnerability in Microsoft Windows 10 1803 and Windows Server 2019 and later systems can allow authenticated RDP-connected clients to gain access to user sessions without needing to interact with the Windows lock screen. Should a network anomaly trigger a temporary RDP disconnect, Automatic Reconnection of the RDP session will be restored to an unlocked state, regardless of how the remote system was left. By interrupting network connectivity of a system, an attacker with access to a system being used as a Windows RDP client can gain access to a connected remote system, regardless of whether or not the remote system was locked. This issue affects Microsoft Windows 10, version 1803 and later, and Microsoft Windows Server 2019, version 2019 and later.
- Published
- Jan 15, 2020
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.3% · 70th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-288
Report tools
Action score
31
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 31 / 40 · 7.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 1.3%
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 7.8
- CNA · certcc
- 5.3
- 2.5 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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
- 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 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 2019all versions
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (certcc). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Microsoft Windows 10 or newer system using RDP
- 1803 and later · before 10 *affected
Microsoft Windows Server
- 2019 and later · before 2019*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.
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
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-288 · Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or ChannelCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/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)
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
- docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-rdpbcgr/e729948a-3f4e-4568-9aef-d355e30b5389
Show all references (3 more)Show less
- docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-server-2008-R2-and-2008/cc732713%28v=ws.11%29
- social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsserver/en-US/1fd171de-a1b5-4721-86bf-082e4a375049/rds-2019-but-probably-other-versions-as-well-locked-rdp-session-logs-in-after-session-reconnect
- www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/576688/
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.