Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 13.05% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2019
CVE-2019-1144High confidence
Microsoft Graphics Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Microsoft · Windows 10 Version 1703
8.8HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Patch availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Microsoft Windows 10 Version 1703 and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
A remote code execution vulnerability exists when the Windows font library improperly handles specially crafted embedded fonts. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of the affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less impacted than users who operate with administrative user rights. There are multiple ways an attacker could exploit the vulnerability: In a web-based attack scenario, an attacker could host a specially crafted website that is designed to exploit the vulnerability and then convince users to view the website. An attacker would have no way to force users to view the attacker-controlled content. Instead, an attacker would have to convince users to take action, typically by getting them to click a link in an email or instant message that takes users to the attacker's website, or by opening an attachment sent through email. In a file-sharing attack scenario, an attacker could provide a specially crafted document file designed to exploit the vulnerability and then convince users to open the document file. The security update addresses the vulnerability by correcting how the Windows font library handles embedded fonts.
What
A remote code execution vulnerability exists when the Windows font library improperly handles specially crafted embedded fonts. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of the affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less impacted than users who operate with administrative user rights. There are multiple ways an attacker could exploit the vulnerability: In a web-based attack scenario, an attacker could host a specially crafted website that is designed to exploit the vulnerability and then convince users to view the website. An attacker would have no way to force users to view the attacker-controlled content. Instead, an attacker would have to convince users to take action, typically by getting them to click a link in an email or instant message that takes users to the attacker's website, or by opening an attachment sent through email. In a file-sharing attack scenario, an attacker could provide a specially crafted document file designed to exploit the vulnerability and then convince users to open the document file. The security update addresses the vulnerability by correcting how the Windows font library handles embedded fonts.
Why
The product calls free() twice on the same memory address.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
A remote code execution vulnerability exists when the Windows font library improperly handles specially crafted embedded fonts. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of the affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less impacted than users who operate with administrative user rights. There are multiple ways an attacker could exploit the vulnerability: In a web-based attack scenario, an attacker could host a specially crafted website that is designed to exploit the vulnerability and then convince users to view the website. An attacker would have no way to force users to view the attacker-controlled content. Instead, an attacker would have to convince users to take action, typically by getting them to click a link in an email or instant message that takes users to the attacker's website, or by opening an attachment sent through email. In a file-sharing attack scenario, an attacker could provide a specially crafted document file designed to exploit the vulnerability and then convince users to open the document file. The security update addresses the vulnerability by correcting how the Windows font library handles embedded fonts.
Why
The product calls free() twice on the same memory address.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Double Free → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-415 ↗
CWE-415: Double Free. The product calls free() twice on the same memory address.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H/E:P/RL:O/RC:CCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Affected
- Windows 10 Version 1703: 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows 10 Version 1803: 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows Server, version 1803 (Server Core Installation): 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows 10 Version 1809: 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2019: 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2019 (Server Core installation): 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows 10 Version 1709 for 32-bit Systems: 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows 10 Version 1709: 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows 10 Version 1903 for 32-bit Systems: 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows 10 Version 1903 for x64-based Systems: 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows 10 Version 1903 for ARM64-based Systems: 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows Server, version 1903 (Server Core installation): 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows 10 Version 1507: 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows 10 Version 1607: 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2016: 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2016 (Server Core installation): 10.0.0 < publication
- Windows 7: 6.1.0 < publication
- Windows 7 Service Pack 1: 6.1.0 < publication
- Windows 8.1: 6.3.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2008 Service Pack 2: 6.0.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2008 Service Pack 2 (Server Core installation): 6.0.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2008 Service Pack 2: 6.0.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2008 R2 Systems Service Pack 1: 6.1.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2008 R2 Service Pack 1: 6.1.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2008 R2 Service Pack 1 (Server Core installation): 6.0.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2012: 6.2.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2012 (Server Core installation): 6.2.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2012 R2: 6.3.0 < publication
- Windows Server 2012 R2 (Server Core installation): 6.3.0 < publication
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 14 Aug 2019 · Last source change 4 Aug 2024, 18:06 UTC · CWE-415 · Double Free
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-01
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2019-9716
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceNIST NVD
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2019-9716 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2019-9716"}
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: added patch: portal.msrc.microsoft.com/CVE-2019-1144; added remediation: portal.msrc.microsoft.com/CVE-2019-1144.portal.msrc.microsoft.com ↗
- Before
- no authoritative guidance recorded
- After
- patch: portal.msrc.microsoft.com/CVE-2019-1144 · remediation: portal.msrc.microsoft.com/CVE-2019-1144
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- 10.0.0 < publication · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- 10.0.0 < publication · Fixed: An authoritative update reference is available, but the fixed version is not recorded in the structured CVE fields. Check the linked vendor advisory for the applicable release.
- Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Patch available.portal.msrc.microsoft.com ↗
- Before
- Awaiting fix
- After
- Patch available
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.