Yes. CISA added CVE-2025-24990 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on 14 October 2025, which it does only when there is reliable evidence of active exploitation. CISA has not linked it to known ransomware campaigns. Microsoft Windows Agere Modem Driver contains an untrusted pointer dereference vulnerability that allows for privilege escalation. Any organisation running the affected product should treat remediation as urgent.
What makes this CVE actionable right away?
The practical signal here is not the weakness name alone, but that CISA has already placed it in KEV, which means defenders should assume active exploitation is credible and time-sensitive. For a Windows privilege-escalation issue, that changes triage from routine patching to emergency exposure confirmation, mitigation, and compromise review. If you are prioritising exploited vulnerabilities, follow CISA KEV and the vendor guidance rather than waiting for normal maintenance windows. CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog NIST National Vulnerability Database
That urgency is especially important when the affected software is part of a Windows estate with legacy or rarely reviewed drivers. Even if the vulnerable component is not visible in day-to-day operations, any host with the driver present should be treated as potentially exposed until verified otherwise. That is why the right question is not whether the CVE sounds familiar, but whether the product is installed anywhere in production, admin, VDI, or remote-access fleets. CVE Program Vulnerability Management Guide
How should teams confirm exposure and prioritise remediation?
Start by identifying where the Microsoft Windows Agere Modem Driver exists, then determine whether those systems are internet-facing, privilege-bearing, or used by administrators. Because the flaw supports privilege escalation, exposure on a low-trust endpoint can still become a high-impact path into the environment if an attacker has any initial foothold. Confirming installation scope is therefore the first control decision, not an administrative nicety.
Use the vendor advisory and CISA KEV entry for authoritative patch and mitigation details, then align the fix window with business criticality. If patching is available, treat it as urgent on all affected hosts, with the highest priority on machines that already host administrative sessions, sensitive credentials, or remote management tooling. Where remediation depends on fleet coordination, make the remediation queue reflect exploitability, not just asset age. Zero-Day and Exploited Vulnerabilities Guide FIRST EPSS
When you need a wider operating picture for prioritisation, compare this finding with other exploited issues already in the queue. The main decision is whether this CVE sits in the same asset class as systems that would give an attacker privileged execution or durable access. If it does, remediation should move ahead of lower-impact vulnerabilities even if their raw technical severity looks similar on paper. CWE Top 25 Guide
What should be checked if patching is delayed or compromise is suspected?
If you cannot remediate immediately, limit the blast radius of any host that could be used for privilege escalation. That means watching for unusual administrative logons, new local admin memberships, suspicious service changes, and unexpected child processes on systems where the driver is present. The concern is not just initial exploitation, but what the attacker can do after gaining elevated rights on a Windows endpoint.
Review endpoint telemetry, Windows security logs, and any EDR detections around the host baseline before and after the exposure window. A privilege-escalation flaw becomes materially more dangerous when paired with token theft, credential dumping, or lateral movement, so investigate whether the host also shows signs of post-exploitation activity rather than treating the CVE as a standalone event. If compromise cannot be ruled out, preserve evidence before making disruptive changes. Cisco Active Directory credentials leak 2025 MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Matrix
Risk and Threat Considerations
This vulnerability matters because privilege escalation changes the attacker’s economics. A bug that requires an initial foothold can still become a serious incident if it reliably converts ordinary access into elevated control on Windows systems, especially where legacy drivers or broad local privilege are still tolerated.
Failure mechanism: An attacker with some execution or foothold on a vulnerable host can abuse the untrusted pointer dereference to gain higher privilege, then use that access to disable defenses, harvest data, or move laterally.
Impact: Successful exploitation can turn a single compromised endpoint into a pivot point for broader domain compromise, so the exposure is operationally urgent even when no ransomware linkage has been reported.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
MITRE ATT&CK addresses the attack and risk surface, while CIS Controls v8 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 | The subject is active exploitation and urgent remediation prioritisation. |
| Recommendation — Prioritise and remediate KEV-listed vulnerabilities on exposed systems first. | ||
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | RA-5 — Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning | Exposure confirmation and remediation depend on finding affected hosts quickly. |
| SI-2 — Flaw Remediation | The CVE requires urgent correction and controlled handling of delayed patching. | |
| AU-6 — Audit Record Review, Analysis, and Reporting | Post-compromise checks depend on reviewing endpoint and authentication activity. | |
| Recommendation — Continuously scan for the vulnerable driver and verify remediation state. Apply the fix or compensating mitigation as soon as operationally possible. Review logs for privilege escalation and post-exploitation activity on affected hosts. | ||
| MITRE ATT&CK | T1068 — Exploitation for Privilege Escalation | The vulnerability type is privilege escalation, which maps directly to this technique. |
| Recommendation — Hunt for exploitation patterns that convert foothold access into elevated privileges. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to verify: Prove whether the Agere Modem Driver is installed anywhere you support, and confirm whether those endpoints are actually reachable by users, admins, or remote tooling. If the product is present on a system with elevated trust, treat it as a priority fix candidate even before you finish full enterprise-wide enumeration.
Decision rule: If the affected driver is installed on a host that matters to identity, admin access, or sensitive data, remediate first and investigate second; if patching must wait, isolate that host and increase monitoring around privilege changes and outbound connections.
Practitioner takeaway: For exploited Windows privilege-escalation issues, the real decision is whether you can prove the vulnerable component is absent or contained, because the cost of waiting is losing control of the host before you know it has been abused.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- CVE-2025-24990 (Microsoft Windows Untrusted Pointer Dereference)
- Is CVE-2025-60710 (Microsoft Windows Link Following) being exploited in the wild?
- Is CVE-2025-62221 (Microsoft Windows Use After Free) being exploited in the wild?
- Is CVE-2025-62215 (Microsoft Windows Race Condition) being exploited in the wild?