Every applicability statement published about this vulnerability, kept as each source wrote it rather than merged into one verdict. Where sources disagree, both positions are shown.
A statement that names no version covers the whole product, which is not the same as your version falling inside a range. Orderings marked best effort come from schemes with no published comparison algorithm; exact ones follow a published specification.
Precedence decides which claim wins when two sources describe the same product over the same version range. It is a property of the source, not of the claim, and changing it re-ranks the data without re-reading a single document.
| Product | Status | Versions | Remediation | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft/Microsoft Exchange Server 2016 Cumulative Update 21 Microsoft · Microsoft Exchange Server 2016 Cumulative Update 21 | affected | >= 15.01.0, < 15.01.2308.020 | none available | cve_cna | |
| Microsoft/Microsoft Exchange Server 2016 Cumulative Update 22 Microsoft · Microsoft Exchange Server 2016 Cumulative Update 22 | affected | >= 15.0.0, < 15.01.2375.017 | none available | cve_cna | |
| Microsoft/Microsoft Exchange Server 2019 Cumulative Update 10 Microsoft · Microsoft Exchange Server 2019 Cumulative Update 10 | affected | >= 15.02.0, < 15.02.0792.019 | none available | cve_cna | |
| Microsoft/Microsoft Exchange Server 2019 Cumulative Update 11 Microsoft · Microsoft Exchange Server 2019 Cumulative Update 11 | affected | >= 15.02.0, < 15.02.0986.014 | none available | cve_cna |
A claim with no version range is shown as written rather than expanded: a government catalog naming only a vendor and product is a real statement at zero granularity, and inventing bounds for it would put precision in the record that the source never offered.