Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-45641 is a high-severity Type Confusion (CWE-843) vulnerability in Microsoft Windows 10 21H2. Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 24th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-35687
Vulnerability Data
Access of resource using incompatible type ('type confusion') in Windows Hyper-V allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code locally.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.5.2V3.2.3V15.3.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and type-aware analysis) directly finds type-confusion flaws before deployment.
Engineering principles can require use of type-safe languages, static typing, and runtime type checks that structurally avoid allocating one type and accessing another.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation rejects malformed indices or lengths that would otherwise cause reads outside buffer bounds.
Memory-protection controls limit the blast radius when a type-confusion access occurs but do not stop the flaw itself.
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.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent type-confusion flaws via safe typing, static analysis, and code review while the control itself addresses many additional weaknesses.
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.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure SDLC mandates type-safe design and review that can catch type-confusion flaws.
Application security requirements can specify strong typing and interface contracts that reduce type confusion.
Secure architecture principles promote type-safe languages and memory-safety mechanisms that mitigate type confusion.
Secure coding standards directly forbid unsafe type casts and require static-analysis checks for type confusion.
Security testing in development can detect type-confusion vulnerabilities through fuzzing and static analysis.