CVE-2026-33825

Microsoft Defender Insufficient Granularity of Access Control Vulnerability

Actively exploited (CISA KEV) Used in ransomware campaigns High 7.8 CVSS 3.1

Description

Insufficient granularity of access control in Microsoft Defender allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally.

Description as published by the source, in English.

Key facts

Published: 2026-04-14
Last modified: 2026-07-24
Assigned by: secure@microsoft.com
CVSS vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Scored by: secure@microsoft.com
Probability of exploitation: 6.7 % higher than 93 % of all known vulnerabilities
EPSS, next 30 days, model v2026.06.15
Fix available: Not registered in the sources

Actively exploited

CISA added this vulnerability to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on 2026-04-22, with a remediation deadline of 2026-05-06 for US federal agencies.

Required action: Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.

Affected products

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
Microsoft	Defender Antimalware Platform	< 4.18.26030.3011	Affected

Weakness type

CWE-1220: Insufficient Granularity of Access Control
The product implements access controls via a policy or other feature with the intention to disable or restrict accesses (reads and/or writes) to assets in a system from untrusted agents. However, implemented access cont…

Attack techniques

Derived through the weakness type: CVE to CWE to CAPEC to ATT&CK. This shows which techniques the weakness class is historically used for. It does not assert that this vulnerability has been exploited that way.

T1574.010: Services File Permissions Weakness stealth, execution

References

https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-33825 Vendor Advisory
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2026-33825 US Government Resource
https://www.huntress.com/blog/nightmare-eclipse-intrusion Third Party Advisory

Related at Berigo

Articles

Two Windows Defender privilege escalations seen in real attacks Mentions this CVE 2026-04-17
Huntress Labs has observed that two published Defender weaknesses, plus a tool that blocks signature updates, are being used by attackers.
A fake CAPTCHA gets the user to open a tunnel into the network Same product 2026-09-01
Microsoft has tracked the TerminalFix campaign, in which compromised websites show a fake Cloudflare CAPTCHA and ask visitors to paste a command into…
A Word macro was the way in at defence manufacturers and government bodies Same product 2026-09-01
Insikt Group has mapped a campaign in which macro-enabled Word documents planted the HOOKEDGE backdoor at defence manufacturers, government bodies an…
Attackers are letting npm mirrors host their fake Cloudflare page Same product 2026-08-27
OX Security has identified 24 malicious npm packages that all carry the same fake Cloudflare page. Installing them does no harm, but mirrors such as …

Does this affect you?

A vulnerability matters only if you run the product, in an affected version, somewhere an attacker can reach.

Check your asset list Browse all vulnerabilities

Sources and freshness

CVE

What it is: A reference number naming one specific vulnerability, for example CVE-2024-9474.
What it tells you: Which vulnerability we are talking about, and in which product.
What it does NOT tell you: Nothing about how serious it is, whether anyone is exploiting it, or whether it concerns you.
Why it matters: Without a shared number, vendor, authority and tooling cannot discuss the same flaw.
Used with the others: The number is the key. NVD, KEV and EPSS all describe the same CVE.

NVD CWE CISA KEV EPSS

How to read this together

No single value should be used on its own. A high CVSS score does not mean a vulnerability is being exploited, and a low one does not mean it is harmless. The four sources answer four different questions.

CVE names the specific vulnerability.
NVD adds severity and technical detail about it.
CWE describes the type of mistake behind it.
CISA KEV shows that it is already being exploited.
EPSS estimates how likely exploitation is soon.

The order that decides what is urgent

Do you actually have the product?
Is the version you run affected?
Is it listed in CISA KEV?
Does it have a high EPSS score?
Is the system reachable from the internet or from others?
How important is the system to the business?
Are there compensating controls already in place?

The first two questions are not about the vulnerability at all. They are about you, and they remove most of the list before you start.

A short example

Fix this week

CVSS 6,5 (medium)

In CISA KEV: yes
EPSS: 94 per cent
A firewall facing the internet

Can be scheduled

CVSS 9,8 (critical)

In CISA KEV: no
EPSS: 0,04 per cent
A test server with no internet access

Sorted by CVSS alone, the one on the right comes first. It is the more serious flaw in theory. But the one on the left is being used against real organisations right now, and it sits where an attacker can reach it. That is the one to fix first.

The critical one still has to be fixed. It just does not have to be fixed today.

This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD. CVE and the CVE logo are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation; CVE records are used under the CVE Terms of Use. CWE is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation, used per the CWE Terms of Use. KEV data from CISA (CC0). Exploitation probability from EPSS, a FIRST.org project. Open-source package data from OSV and the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

Scores and vectors are shown as published by the sources. The ordering of results is Berigo's own editorial assessment, described on the search page, and is not NVD data. An empty result never means a system is safe.