SummaryAI-written · claude-haiku-5-5AI-written · claude-haiku-5-5Written by a language model from the source data on this page. Not reviewed by a person. Generated 29 Oct 2026.
A memory corruption flaw in Microsoft Office affects several products, including Word 2007 SP3, Office 2010 SP2, Word 2013 SP1, Word for Mac 2011, the Office Compatibility Pack SP3, and Word Automation Services and Office Web Apps Server on SharePoint Server 2010 and 2013. An attacker who supplies a crafted RTF document can execute arbitrary code, but only if a user is induced to open or interact with that document.
Official description · NVDSource dataSource dataCopied from an authoritative feed: NVD, CVE.org, CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS or MITRE CTID mappings, or labelled by the annotators of a published dataset. Copied from NVD.
Microsoft Word 2007 SP3, Office 2010 SP2, Word 2010 SP2, Word 2013 SP1, Word 2013 RT SP1, Word for Mac 2011, Office Compatibility Pack SP3, Word Automation Services on SharePoint Server 2010 SP2 and 2013 SP1, and Office Web Apps Server 2010 SP2 and 2013 SP1 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted RTF document, aka "Microsoft Office Memory Corruption Vulnerability."
Priority scorePatchfirst’s 0 to 100 ranking. It adds points for CISA KEV listing, ransomware use, EPSS, threat reports, public exploit code and CVSS. Every CVE page shows the breakdown.Breakdown
87.4 / 100
Exploited
Yes, in CISA KEV
Reports
4
Tactics
1/15
How an attack unfolds
Based on MITRE ATT&CKA public catalogue of the techniques attackers use, maintained by MITRE. Patchfirst uses it to describe what attackers do with a vulnerability. mappings. Select a step to see the evidence.
Exploitation timelineDated milestones for a CVE: when it was disclosed, when exploit code became public, when exploitation was confirmed, and when threat reports named it.
First seen exploited the day it was disclosed. Public exploit code (PoC-in-GitHub) appeared 6 months after disclosure.
CISA KEV listing is when exploitation was confirmed, not necessarily the first attack.
MITRE ATT&CKA public catalogue of the techniques attackers use, maintained by MITRE. Patchfirst uses it to describe what attackers do with a vulnerability. techniques
2 TechniqueOne specific attacker behaviour in MITRE ATT&CK, such as T1190 “Exploit Public-Facing Application”. IDs with a dot, like T1059.004, are sub-techniques., grouped by TacticThe attacker’s goal at a stage of an attack in MITRE ATT&CK, such as Initial Access or Persistence. Each technique belongs to one or more tactics. in kill-chain order, 2 cited passagesSourceSource dataCopied from an authoritative feed: NVD, CVE.org, CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS or MITRE CTID mappings, or labelled by the annotators of a published dataset.1AIAI-writtenWritten by a language model from the source data on this page. Not reviewed by a person.1
ExecutionTA0002
Exploitation for Client ExecutionT1203Medium Confidence (technique links)How sure Patchfirst is that an ATT&CK technique applies to this CVE. High and medium links are shown by default; low ones come from early or generic mappings, text matching, or contradict the CVE’s details.
Source dataSource dataCopied from an authoritative feed: NVD, CVE.org, CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS or MITRE CTID mappings, or labelled by the annotators of a published dataset. CTID attack_to_cve (Phase 1); claude-haiku-5-5: memory corruption yields code execution in client.MITRE CTID mapping of the CVE · uncategorised
Malicious FileT1204.002Medium Confidence (technique links)How sure Patchfirst is that an ATT&CK technique applies to this CVE. High and medium links are shown by default; low ones come from early or generic mappings, text matching, or contradict the CVE’s details.
AI-written · claude-haiku-5-5AI-written · claude-haiku-5-5Written by a language model from the source data on this page. Not reviewed by a person. claude-haiku-5-5: user opens malicious document triggers exploit.AI mapping from the description · how it is exploited
These come from early or generic mappings, text matching, or contradict this CVE’s details (for example a public-facing technique on a bug that needs a user to open a file). Shown for completeness.
Process InjectionT1055SourceSource dataCopied from an authoritative feed: NVD, CVE.org, CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS or MITRE CTID mappings, or labelled by the annotators of a published dataset. CTID attack_to_cve (Phase 1).CTID attack_to_cve Phase 1 "Uncategorized" mapping (not staged by impact)
Drive-by CompromiseT1189SourceSource dataCopied from an authoritative feed: NVD, CVE.org, CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS or MITRE CTID mappings, or labelled by the annotators of a published dataset. CTID attack_to_cve (Phase 1).CTID attack_to_cve Phase 1 "Uncategorized" mapping (not staged by impact)
Detection
1 rule for this CVE · 74 general rules for its techniques
Rules for this CVE
1Sigma ruleAn open, vendor-neutral detection rule for log data. Security teams convert Sigma rules into searches for their own SIEM. that reference CVE-2015-1641 directly.
Named in 4 threat reportsMachineMachine-matchedFound by keyword or pattern matching over threat-report text. Not reviewed by a person. Exact CVE id found in the report text.
4 reportscitizenlab.caTrend Microforcepoint.com+1
Reports are matched by finding the exact id CVE-2015-1641 in their text; nobody has reviewed the match. One passage is shown per report, at most 320 characters, linked to the original.
The researchers describe the presumed existence of an exploit document ‘builder’ designed to selectively weaponize .rtf files using four older, patched, vulnerabilities: CVE-2012-0158, CVE-2012-1856, CVE-2015-1641, and CVE-2015-1770.