Yes. CISA added CVE-2015-1671 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on 25 May 2022, which it does only when there is reliable evidence of active exploitation. CISA has not linked it to known ransomware campaigns. A remote code execution vulnerability exists when components of Windows, .NET Framework, Office, Lync, and Silverlight fail to properly handle TrueType fonts.
What CISA’s KEV Listing Means for This Windows RCE
CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue is a practical exploitation signal, not a theoretical severity label. For CVE-2015-1671, the key question is not whether the flaw exists, but whether exposure remains anywhere in the estate, because confirmed exploitation means legacy systems, forgotten endpoints, and unmonitored internet-facing Windows components become immediate risk. CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog
Because the vulnerability is a remote code execution condition tied to font handling in Windows, .NET Framework, Office, Lync, and Silverlight, any system still using those affected components should be treated as potentially reachable through normal content processing paths rather than only through explicit administrative access. That makes inventory accuracy and exposure scoping the first practical step, especially where older desktop software, terminal services, or legacy application stacks remain in use. NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
For teams managing the affected Microsoft ecosystem, patch status alone is not enough. You need to know whether the vulnerable component is present, whether the host is externally reachable, and whether the system can be isolated quickly if remediation has to wait. In practice, that means prioritising internet-facing servers, shared workstations, and any platform used to render untrusted documents, email, or web content. NIST AI Risk Management Framework
Why Exploited-in-the-Wild RCEs Need More Than Routine Patch Cadence
Once a vulnerability is being exploited in the wild, the operational problem changes from “apply a fix when convenient” to “reduce the attacker’s window of opportunity now.” NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and FIRST EPSS both support that kind of prioritisation, but the decisive factor here is the KEV signal: confirmed active exploitation means remediation should outrank ordinary backlog ordering.
Where patching is delayed, the practical question becomes what compensating controls can actually reduce exposure. Network containment, limiting content that triggers the vulnerable parser path, and temporary removal of unnecessary legacy components are more defensible than relying on detection alone, because RCE exploitation often happens before host-based tools see an obvious malicious process chain. NIST Privacy Framework
Teams should also treat this as a potential compromise-assessment trigger, not just a patching event. If the vulnerable software was exposed to untrusted content before remediation, investigate for unusual child processes, suspicious downloads, new services, altered scheduled tasks, and abnormal outbound connections on the affected hosts. MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Matrix
What to Check Before You Declare the Issue Closed
The safest closure criterion is not “the patch is installed,” but “the affected software has been removed or updated, exposure has been reduced, and there is no evidence of prior abuse.” For Windows fleets, that means checking the exact products named in the advisory context, confirming remediation on every endpoint class, and validating that legacy protocol paths or document-rendering workflows cannot still reach the vulnerable code path. CVE Program
When a KEV-listed flaw is tied to remote code execution, the post-fix question is whether the attacker may have gained a foothold before the fix landed. If any exposed system handled outside content during the risk window, review authentication events, new local accounts, service creation, autoruns, and security log gaps, because exploit success often leads to persistence rather than an obvious one-time crash. NIST National Vulnerability Database
If the vulnerable host supported user sessions, document handling, or remote access, consider whether credentials or active sessions on that machine were exposed to follow-on abuse. In a Windows environment, post-compromise review is not complete until you have assessed whether the attacker could reuse local privilege, cached secrets, or trusted access paths from the affected system. NIST AI Risk Management Framework
Risk and Threat Considerations
An actively exploited remote code execution flaw can be used to turn a normal file, page, or content-rendering workflow into initial access. In Windows environments, that matters because a single successful exploit may provide the attacker with execution in a context that can be used for persistence, lateral movement, or further credential theft if the host is not tightly segmented.
Failure mechanism: The vulnerable TrueType font handling path accepts crafted input that the target processes during ordinary rendering, allowing code execution without a separate interactive login.
Impact: Successful exploitation can lead to full host compromise, follow-on malware installation, data access, and use of the system as a pivot point into adjacent services.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| NIST CSF 2.0 | GV.RM-01 — Risk Management Strategy | Exploited-in-the-wild CVEs need prioritised remediation and exposure management. |
| ID.AM-01 — Inventories of Hardware Assets Are Maintained | You must find every Windows host running the affected components before remediation is meaningful. | |
| PR.IP-12 — Vulnerability Management | The question concerns exploited vulnerability response and remediation sequencing. | |
| Recommendation — Prioritise KEV-listed vulnerabilities in your remediation workflow. Maintain an asset inventory that identifies exposed Windows systems. Apply vulnerability management processes to triage and remediate KEV items. | ||
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | RA-5 — Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning | Active exploitation makes continuous detection and verification of exposure essential. |
| SI-2 — Flaw Remediation | An exploited Windows RCE requires timely fix deployment and exception handling. | |
| Recommendation — Scan for the vulnerable software and verify remediation status. Remediate the flaw promptly and track exceptions until closure. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to prioritise: Triage every exposed Windows, .NET Framework, Office, Lync, and Silverlight host that can process untrusted content, then sort them by internet exposure and business criticality rather than by patching convenience.
What to verify: Confirm that remediation covered all endpoints, not just the most visible servers, and that no legacy application still depends on the vulnerable component for day-to-day operations.
Escalation / exception: If a system cannot be patched quickly, treat it as a temporary high-risk exception only if you can shorten exposure, isolate the host, and perform a compromise review before returning it to normal service.
Practitioner takeaway: For KEV-listed RCEs, the real control objective is not simply “patch fast,” but “remove exploitable exposure fast and prove the host was not already used.”
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- Guide: Zero-Day and Exploited Vulnerabilities Guide
- Is CVE-2020-1350 (Microsoft Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution) being exploited in the wild?
- Is CVE-2011-3402 (Microsoft Windows Remote Code Execution) being exploited in the wild?
- Is CVE-2023-36884 (Microsoft Windows Search Remote Code Execution) being exploited in the wild?
- Is CVE-2022-41128 (Microsoft Windows Scripting Languages Remote Code Execution) being exploited in the wild?