CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
CISA KEVhighpublic exploit

CVE-2026-21509

CVE-2026-21509 — Microsoft Office Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability

Reliance on untrusted inputs in a security decision in Microsoft Office allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature locally.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, Microsoft (CNA), CISA, FIRST EPSS, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Confirmed

CISA KEV, listed Jan 26, 2026

EPSS

73%

ahead of 99.4% of scored CVEs

Affects

Microsoft

5 products listed

CVSS base

7.8

high · 2 sources

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

Active

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade Microsoft 365 Apps for Enterprise to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

CISA required action

Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.

Federal deadline Feb 16, 2026 — passed 217 days ago

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

  • Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
  • Treat as emergency remediation because CISA KEV status is present.
  • Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
MicrosoftMicrosoft 365 Apps for Enterprise16.0.1Vulnerable
MicrosoftMicrosoft Office 201616.0.0 to < 16.0.5539.1001Vulnerable
MicrosoftMicrosoft Office 201919.0.0 to < 16.0.10417.20095Vulnerable
MicrosoftMicrosoft Office LTSC 202116.0.1Vulnerable
MicrosoftMicrosoft Office LTSC 202416.0.0Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Local

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

Required

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
7.8CVSS 3.1high1.85.9Microsoft (CNA)
7.8CVSS 3.1highMicrosoft (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-807 · Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision

  • Bypass Protection Mechanism
  • Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
  • Varies by Context

Mitigation: Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only. Ensure that the system definitively and unambiguously keeps track of its own state and user state and has rules defined for legitimate state transitions. Do not allow any application user to affect state directly in any way other than through legitimate actions leading to state transitions. If information must be stored on the client, do not do so without encryption and integrity checking, or otherwise having a mechanism on the server side to catch tampering. Use a message authentication code (MAC) algorithm, such as Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC) [REF-529]. Apply this against the state or sensitive data that you has to be exposed, which can guarantee the integrity of the data - i.e., that the data has not been modified. Ensure that a strong hash function is used (CWE-328).

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-807

CISA KEV details

CISA lists a CVE here once it has evidence of exploitation against real targets.

Listed

Jan 26, 2026

Federal deadline

Feb 16, 2026

passed 217 days ago

Ransomware use

Unknown

CISA records ransomware use only for campaigns it has confirmed, so “Unknown” means unrecorded, not ruled out. The deadline binds US federal agencies; for everyone else it is a date to argue against.

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

17

2 of the 5 sampled are weaponized

Exploit entries

7

Exploit-DB and CTI exploit indexes

Social mentions

Posts naming this CVE. Attention, not evidence of exploitation — it spikes on disclosure and decays whether or not anything is exploited.

SOCRadar35 more posts on this CVEShowing 5 of 40 · Who is discussing this CVE, and how loudlyUnlock free

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 24 public PoC repositories were reported.

Groups associated with this CVE

Groups reported in connection with this vulnerability. A reported association, not a confirmed observation of that group using it — and not scoped to any sector or campaign.

White BearRoaming TigerTAG-28APT 28TA2552
SOCRadar11 more threat groups on this CVEShowing 5 of 16 · Attribution, campaigns and the malware each one runsUnlock free
  • ip120.28.199.2473

    AlienVault OTX Feeds · Dec 4, 2025

  • ip110.37.89.21044

    AbuseIPDB Hourly Update · Jan 28, 2026

  • ip110.39.248.11756

    GreyList · Nov 26, 2025

  • ip110.36.86.058

    AbuseIPDB Hourly Update · Jan 30, 2026

  • ip180.191.230.6180

    Abuse.ch-Urlhaus-C&Cs · Feb 5, 2026

SOCRadar5 more indicators on this CVEShowing 5 of 10 · Hashes, addresses and domains from a live threat exchangeUnlock free

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

  1. 2026
  2. Added · CVSS 3.1 7.8 (AV:L)

    Jun 25, 2026 · NVD

  3. Added to CISA KEV catalog

    Jan 26, 2026 · CISA

  4. Initial · CVE published

    Jan 26, 2026 · NVD

Source activity

Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.

  • 23×SVRS was changedMay 24, 2026 – Aug 25, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
  • 13×TweetsMay 28, 2026 – Aug 14, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
  • Github ReposJun 30, 2026 – Jul 23, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
  • CVE modified by MITRE: CVSS metrics updated.Jun 25, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

5 on the record

Coverage

19 stories from the feeds we poll

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • Only the 5 indicator(s) reported for this CVE are available; no packet-level or host-forensic artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-21509 is Microsoft Office Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability, a high vulnerability affecting Microsoft 365 Apps for Enterprise, Microsoft Office 2016, Microsoft Office 2019, Microsoft Office LTSC 2021, Microsoft Office LTSC 2024 from Microsoft. The current evidence lists it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Yes: CISA KEV signal present. Public exploit evidence is: 24 public PoC repositories reported; 2 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 7.8 describes technical severity, while EPSS 73% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.