Cyber Resilience

CVE-2016-3222

Memory Safety in Microsoft Edge

Public PoCHigh EPSSMemory Safety
Published
16 June 2016
Modified
06 May 2026
CVSS Score v3 8.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.57 99th percentile
Risk Priority 87 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2016-3222 is a high-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Microsoft Edge. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).

Operationally, ranked in the top 1% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Microsoft Edge allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted web site, aka "Microsoft Edge Memory Corruption Vulnerability."

CWE(s)

Related Threats

Likely ATT&CK TechniquesAI

Techniques this vulnerability likely enables, inferred from its description, weakness type, and attributed-actor tradecraft. Confidence is per-technique.

T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Executionconfidence: HIGH
Memory corruption in a browser via crafted web content directly enables client-side exploitation for execution.
T1189 Drive-by Compromise Initial Accessconfidence: HIGH
Remote code execution or DoS triggered by visiting a crafted website matches drive-by compromise.
inferred from description + CWE · MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v19.0

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-28284Same product: Microsoft Edge
CVE-2023-36883Same product: Microsoft Edge
CVE-2023-28301Same product: Microsoft Edge
CVE-2016-7193Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2017-11774Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2014-6332Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2015-2546Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2019-1214Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2017-11882Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2017-0089Same vendor: Microsoft

Affected Assets

microsoft
edge
all versions

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V17.3.2

Likely Mitigating Controls AI

Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.

addresses: CWE-119

Ongoing control assessments and code testing (static/dynamic analysis, fuzzing) surface memory buffer restriction failures, which are then remediated before release.

addresses: CWE-119

Managed runtimes used by platform-independent applications (e.g., JVM, CLR) enforce memory safety, preventing most buffer overflows that require direct memory manipulation.

addresses: CWE-119

Memory protections (e.g., W^X, ASLR) make exploitation of buffer-boundary violations far harder to turn into code execution.

addresses: CWE-119

Detects exploitation attempts that produce memory corruption, crashes, or anomalous behavior.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.

ID.RA-08 partial match
prevents

Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.

PR.AT-02 partial match
prevents

Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

detects

Security testing in development catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.

prevents

Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.

References