CVE-2026-26160
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 · high confidenceMissing authentication for a critical function in Windows Remote Desktop Licensing Service allows a locally authorized attacker to elevate privileges to higher permissions by exploiting the unprotected service function.
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 version against affected rangesRun 'winver' or 'systeminfo | findstr /B /C:"OS Name" /C:"OS Version"' and compare the full build number to the affected version listAffected if The installed build number is lower than any of the listed thresholds (e.g., less than 10.0.14393.9060 for Windows 10 1607, less than 10.0.22631.6936 for Windows 11 23h2, etc.)
-
Verify Remote Desktop Licensing service presenceOpen Services console (services.msc) or run 'Get-Service -Name TermServLicensing' in PowerShell to check if the Remote Desktop Licensing service exists on the systemAffected if The Remote Desktop Licensing service is installed and present on the system
-
Confirm service is runningCheck the service status via 'sc query TermServLicensing' or in Services console - look for Running stateAffected if The Remote Desktop Licensing service is currently running
-
Assess local user permissionsUse 'whoami /priv' to verify current user privileges and determine if the attacker would need authorized local access to exploit this flawAffected if A local user with standard privileges exists on the system where the licensing service is accessible
A system is affected if it runs a Windows version with a build number below the thresholds listed AND has the Remote Desktop Licensing service installed and running, allowing a locally authorized user to potentially exploit the unprotected service function for privilege escalation.
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 Microsoft security updates for Windows Remote Desktop Licensing Service to remediate the missing authentication vulnerability.
Windows 10 1607: build 10.0.14393.9060 | Windows 10 1809: build 10.0.17763.8644 | Windows 10 21h2: build 10.0.19044.7184 | Windows 10 22h2: build 10.0.19045.7184 | Windows 11 23h2: build 10.0.22631.6936 | Windows 11 24h2: build 10.0.26100.8246 | Windows 11 25h2: build 10.0.26200.8246 | Windows 11 26
- Identify current Windows version and build number by running 'winver' or 'systeminfo | findstr /B /C:"OS Name" /C:"OS Version"'
- For Windows 10 1607 systems: Upgrade to Windows 10 build 10.0.14393.9060 or later
- For Windows 10 1809 systems: Upgrade to Windows 10 build 10.0.17763.8644 or later
- For Windows 10 21h2 systems: Upgrade to Windows 10 build 10.0.19044.7184 or later
- For Windows 10 22h2 systems: Upgrade to Windows 10 build 10.0.19045.7184 or later
- For Windows 11 23h2 systems: Upgrade to Windows 11 build 10.0.22631.6936 or later
- For Windows 11 24h2 systems: Upgrade to Windows 11 build 10.0.26100.8246 or later
- For Windows 11 25h2 systems: Upgrade to Windows 11 build 10.0.26200.8246 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-26160 — 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-2026-26160 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