Is CVE-2023-21715 (Microsoft Office Publisher Security Feature Bypass) being exploited in the wild?

What it means to be “exploited in the wild” for this CVE

The practical answer is yes, because CISA’s KEV catalogue is reserved for vulnerabilities with reliable evidence of active exploitation. For CVE-2023-21715, the question is not whether the flaw exists, but whether exposed Microsoft Office Publisher installations still create operational risk. In that sense, the main job is confirming exposure, not debating the reality of exploitation.

For background and prioritisation, the most useful references are the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog and the NIST National Vulnerability Database, which together help you validate the record, track it in your inventory, and align remediation work to a trusted vulnerability source.

Why this Publisher security feature bypass matters operationally

This is a security feature bypass in Microsoft Office Publisher, not a generic crash or benign bug. Because the vulnerability can be used on a targeted system by a local, authenticated attacker, the real concern is post-access abuse: an adversary who already has a foothold can use the bypass to weaken a defensive assumption and expand what they can do on that host.

That makes the issue especially relevant in environments where Publisher is still installed on user workstations or shared endpoints, or where local authenticated access is easier than it should be. The control question is not only whether the patch is applied, but whether the product is present at all and whether local access paths are already overly permissive.

How to triage and respond when patching is delayed

Use the vulnerability as an inventory and access review trigger. Confirm whether Microsoft Office Publisher is installed, whether the affected endpoints are business critical, and whether any local users, support accounts, or remote access paths could reach the system. If you cannot remediate immediately, reduce exposure by limiting local interactive access and isolating endpoints that still need the application.

When patching must wait, treat the issue as a compensating-control problem rather than a monitoring problem. Restrict who can log on locally, remove unnecessary software, and watch for suspicious use of Office processes on systems where Publisher should not normally be active. If an endpoint is already showing signs of compromise, prioritise containment before routine patch rollout.

For a structured response playbook on actively exploited vulnerabilities, use Zero-Day and Exploited Vulnerabilities Guide. For broader remediation discipline across inventories, exceptions, and verification, the Vulnerability Management Guide is the better operational companion.

Risk and Threat Considerations

The risk is not just that a bypass exists, but that an already-established session or local foothold can be converted into something more useful to an attacker. Once a vulnerability is known to be actively exploited, defenders should assume adversaries will try to pair it with weak endpoint hygiene, excessive local access, or delayed patching to increase impact.

Failure mechanism: A local, authenticated attacker uses the publisher security feature bypass to defeat an expected control boundary on the target system, then leverages that reduced protection to deepen access or prepare follow-on activity.

Impact: The likely result is increased exposure on endpoints that still run Microsoft Office Publisher, especially where local access is already broad or where compromise detection is weak. In practice, that can mean faster attacker progress from initial access to persistence, collection, or lateral movement.

Practitioner Guidance

What to verify: First confirm where Publisher is installed and who can use it. If the application is present on systems that do not need it, removal is a stronger fix than waiting for users to avoid it.

Decision rule: If you have evidence of local compromise on a host that contains Publisher, treat it as a containment case, not just a patch case. If you only have exposure, prioritise endpoint patching and access tightening together, because either one alone leaves residual risk.

Practitioner takeaway: For KEV-listed flaws, the question shifts quickly from “is it real?” to “where can it still be abused?”, and the answer usually depends on endpoint inventory, local access, and how quickly you can reduce the blast radius.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• How do you patch or mitigate CVE-2023-21715 (Microsoft Office Publisher Security Feature Bypass)?
• CVE-2023-21715 (Microsoft Office Publisher Security Feature Bypass)
• Is CVE-2023-32049 (Microsoft Windows Defender SmartScreen Security Feature Bypass) being exploited in the wild?
• Is CVE-2026-21509 (Microsoft Office Security Feature Bypass) being exploited in the wild?