CVE-2026-26159
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedMissing authentication for critical function in Windows Remote Desktop Licensing Service allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceMissing authentication in Windows Remote Desktop Licensing Service for a critical function enables a locally authorized attacker to escalate privileges. This is a local privilege escalation vulnerability where the service fails to properly authenticate before allowing access to a sensitive operation.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 10.0.14393.9060< 10.0.17763.8644< 10.0.19044.7184< 10.0.19045.7184< 10.0.22631.6936< 10.0.26100.8246< 10.0.26200.8246< 10.0.28000.1836CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check Windows versionRun 'winver' or 'systeminfo | findstr /B /C:"OS Name" /C:"OS Version"' to obtain your Windows build numberAffected if The build number is less than any of these thresholds: 14393.9060 (Win10 1607), 17763.8644 (Win10 1809), 19044.7184 (Win10 21h2/22h2), 22631.6936 (Win11 23h2), 26100.8246 (Win11 24h2/25h2), or 28000.1836 (Win11 26h1)
-
Verify Remote Desktop Licensing Service is presentOpen Services (services.msc) and look for 'Remote Desktop Licensing' or run 'sc query termservlicense' in Command PromptAffected if The service exists on the system (even if stopped, the vulnerability applies if the service binary is present)
You are affected if your Windows version falls within the affected build ranges AND the Remote Desktop Licensing service is installed on your system.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped10.0.14393.906010.0.17763.864410.0.19044.7184
Apply the Microsoft security update for CVE-2026-26159 to patch the Windows Remote Desktop Licensing Service and enforce proper authentication for the affected critical function.
Windows 10 1607 and later: Apply cumulative update to reach version 10.0.14393.9060 or later (specific to your Windows release)
- Check current Windows version by running `winver` or `systeminfo | findstr /B /C:"OS Name" /C:"OS Version"`
- Identify the appropriate update for your Windows version from the list of affected versions
- Apply the latest Windows cumulative update through Windows Update, or download from Microsoft Update Catalog
- Restart the system after applying the update
- Verify the installed version matches or exceeds the fixed version for your release (1607: 10.0.14393.9060, 1809: 10.0.17763.8644, 21h2: 10.0.19044.7184, 22h2: 10.0.19045.7184, 23h2: 10.0.22631.6936, 24h2: 10.0.26100.8246, 25h2: 10.0.26200.8246, 26h1: 10.0.28000.1836)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-26159 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-26159 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data