Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2017-11826 is a high-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Microsoft Word. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Process Injection (T1055); ranked in the top 0.4% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2017-11826 is a memory corruption vulnerability, tracked under CWE-119, that affects multiple Microsoft Office and SharePoint components including Office 2010, SharePoint Server 2010 and Enterprise Server 2010, Office Web Apps Server 2010 and 2013, Word 2007 through 2016, Word Viewer, Word Automation Services, and Office Online Server. The flaw arises when the software fails to properly handle objects in memory, enabling remote code execution.
An attacker can exploit the issue by supplying a specially crafted document that triggers the memory corruption when opened by the victim. The CVSS vector (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R) indicates local attack vector with no privileges required and only user interaction needed, resulting in high impact to confidentiality, integrity, and availability once code execution is achieved.
Microsoft's Security Response Center advisory and related vendor bulletins address mitigation through available security updates for the affected products. Public analyses, including those from McAfee and 0patch, confirm the vulnerability was observed being exploited in the wild as a zero-day prior to patching.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2017-3426
Vulnerability Data
Microsoft Office 2010, SharePoint Enterprise Server 2010, SharePoint Server 2010, Web Applications, Office Web Apps Server 2010 and 2013, Word Viewer, Word 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016, Word Automation Services, and Office Online Server allow remote code execution when the…
more
software fails to properly handle objects in memory.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 03 March 2022
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
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.
Ongoing control assessments and code testing (static/dynamic analysis, fuzzing) surface memory buffer restriction failures, which are then remediated before release.
Managed runtimes used by platform-independent applications (e.g., JVM, CLR) enforce memory safety, preventing most buffer overflows that require direct memory manipulation.
Memory protections (e.g., W^X, ASLR) make exploitation of buffer-boundary violations far harder to turn into code execution.
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.
Secure SDLC practices (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
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.
Security testing in development catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.