Yes. CISA added CVE-2024-24919 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on 30 May 2024, which it does only when there is reliable evidence of active exploitation. CISA lists it as known to be used in ransomware campaigns. Check Point Quantum Security Gateways contain an unspecified information disclosure vulnerability. Any organisation running the affected product should treat remediation as urgent.
What this CVE means operationally when exploitation is confirmed
CISA’s KEV listing changes the question from “is there a theoretical weakness?” to “is this a live exposure we must treat as actively targeted?” For internet-facing appliances, that means exposure is a management problem, not a vulnerability-intelligence exercise. If you cannot confidently prove a gateway is not reachable or not affected, assume it needs immediate attention and align response with the vendor advisory and KEV entry rather than waiting for local telemetry to become definitive.
Because the product is an edge gateway, the first practical concern is not just the flaw itself but whether the device sits in a path where attackers can reach it before your change window opens. That makes asset scope, management-plane exposure, and exception handling part of the response, especially when the appliance is shared across teams or protected by weak operational controls. NHIMG’s Edge Device Security Guide is the most relevant internal starting point for hardening and logging expectations on exposed gateways.
How to confirm exposure and reduce blast radius
The right response sequence is to confirm where the gateway is deployed, whether it is reachable from untrusted networks, and whether the product instance is covered by the vendor’s guidance for CVE-2024-24919. Once exposure is confirmed, isolate the management path, review whether the device has any adjacent trust relationships, and treat any credential, session, or administrative path that touches the appliance as potentially exposed until you can rule it out.
For practitioners, exploited edge flaws are often dangerous because the appliance can sit between users and internal services. That means compromise can create a pivot point rather than a one-off device issue. Use Ivanti Connect Secure exploitation 2024 as a practical analogue for how appliance-level exploitation can turn into credential exposure and broader access risk. On the external side, CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog is the authoritative place to confirm the active-exploitation status that drives prioritisation.
If patching must wait, put compensating controls around reachability, administrative access, and monitoring. In practice that means shrinking exposure first, then watching for anomalous logins, new admin sessions, configuration drift, or unexpected outbound traffic from the gateway and any systems it brokers.
What to do after remediation and why evidence still matters
After remediation, do not stop at “patched.” Check for signs that the gateway was touched before the fix, especially if the device was internet-facing or exposed to a broad user population. If the appliance handled management traffic, authentication traffic, or privileged sessions, rotate the relevant secrets and invalidate sessions where that is operationally possible, because an information disclosure flaw can reveal more than the headline suggests.
The most useful second-order evidence is whether the device was used as a stepping stone. If logs are incomplete, assume your confidence is lower than your patch status. That is why exploited-appliance playbooks should include post-fix verification, not just remediation completion. The Zero-Day and Exploited Vulnerabilities Guide is a strong internal reference for emergency mitigation, compromise assessment, and hotpatching discipline. For tracking and prioritisation at scale, FIRST EPSS can complement KEV by helping teams understand which vulnerabilities are more likely to be exploited while remediation work is queued.
Risk and Threat Considerations
When a gateway vulnerability is already in KEV and associated with ransomware campaigns, the risk is no longer abstract. Attackers care about edge devices because they are externally reachable, often privileged, and frequently under-monitored compared with endpoints and servers. That combination makes exploitation attractive for initial access, follow-on credential theft, and lateral movement.
Failure mechanism: An information disclosure weakness on a security gateway can expose data that helps an attacker authenticate, pivot, or refine exploitation, especially when the device also fronts administrative or remote-access functions.
Impact: The likely consequence is broader than a single appliance issue, because exposed credentials or session material can turn a gateway compromise into environment-wide access, service disruption, or ransomware staging.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
CIS Controls v8, NIST CSF 2.0 and NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-7 — Continuous Vulnerability Management | Live exploited CVEs require prioritised remediation and exposure verification. |
| Recommendation — Prioritise KEV-listed flaws for rapid remediation and validate exposure reduction. | ||
| NIST CSF 2.0 | ID.RA-01 — Asset Vulnerability Identification | The question is about an actively exploited vulnerability and confirmation of exposure. |
| PR.IP-12 — Vulnerability Management | This CVE demands urgent mitigation, patching, and verification after remediation. | |
| Recommendation — Identify affected assets and verify whether the gateway is exposed to the vulnerable condition. Apply vulnerability management processes to remediate and confirm closure of the issue. | ||
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | RA-5 — Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning | The answer depends on confirming exposure and tracking known exploited vulnerabilities. |
| SI-2 — Flaw Remediation | Actively exploited weaknesses require timely remediation and validation. | |
| Recommendation — Scan for the vulnerable product and track remediation until exposure is removed. Remediate the flaw promptly and verify the fix is effective. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to prioritise: Treat the KEV listing as a remediation trigger, not a research prompt. If the gateway is internet-facing, reachable from third parties, or used for privileged administration, prioritise it ahead of routine patch queues and exception reviews.
What to verify: Confirm device inventory, management exposure, and whether any secrets or sessions could have passed through the appliance before remediation. If logs are sparse, compensate by checking adjacent systems for unusual authentication, configuration, or access patterns.
Decision rule: If you cannot establish that the affected product is fully remediated and not externally reachable, assume exposure remains until the vendor fix or mitigation is in place and validated.
Practitioner takeaway: For KEV-listed edge-device flaws, the real decision is not whether exploitation is possible, but whether you can still trust the gateway’s access paths, credentials, and logs after exposure has already been proven.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- How do you patch or mitigate CVE-2024-24919 (Check Point Quantum Security Gateways Information Disclosure)?
- CVE-2024-24919 (Check Point Quantum Security Gateways Information Disclosure)
- Is CVE-2024-13159 (Ivanti Endpoint Manager (EPM) Absolute Path Traversal) being exploited in the wild?
- Is CVE-2024-29824 (Ivanti Endpoint Manager (EPM) SQL Injection) being exploited in the wild?