Is CVE-2025-24984 (Microsoft Windows NTFS Information Disclosure) being exploited in the wild?

What “being exploited in the wild” means for this CVE

This question is really about whether the vulnerability has crossed from theoretical exposure into active attacker use. For a CVE on CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue, the practical implication is that defenders should treat it as an in-use attack path, not just a patching item. For a disclosure issue in NTFS, the immediate concern is whether an attacker can reach data that should not be visible.

CISA’s KEV listing is one of the clearest operational signals that exploitation is already occurring, and the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog remains the primary place to confirm that status. The CVE Program and NVD are the right references for authoritative record details and for tracking the vulnerability entry itself.

What exposure to check first

Start by confirming where Windows systems may expose NTFS functionality in the environments you support. The practical check is not only whether the CVE is known, but whether any endpoint, workstation, or server handling physical media, removable storage, or local access could be affected by a disclosure path tied to NTFS. If the asset can be touched locally, the business impact can extend beyond the vulnerable host to any data reachable through it.

Because the vulnerability is an information disclosure issue rather than a remote takeover issue, the most relevant questions are which data could be exposed, whether sensitive files or metadata are present on the affected machine, and whether the same device is used for privileged or high-value work. The disclosure may be narrow, but in practice even narrow disclosures can support follow-on intrusion steps.

How to respond when patching must wait

If you cannot remediate immediately, reduce the chance that an attacker can reach the affected device through physical access, removable media, or shared-use workflows. That means tightening local access assumptions, limiting who can handle the endpoint, and treating the device as higher risk until it is remediated. For this class of issue, containment is often about access discipline as much as it is about software change.

Use the vendor advisory and the KEV catalogue to verify the required action and any timing expectations, then apply your internal emergency vulnerability process. The most useful interim controls are those that shrink opportunity for local interaction and lower the value of any information that might be disclosed before the fix is in place.

Risk and Threat Considerations

This is a practical exposure issue because active exploitation means the vulnerability is already useful to attackers, even if the consequence is “only” disclosure. In a local or physical attack scenario, the attacker may not need privileged credentials or remote access if they can interact with the system directly.

Failure mechanism: The flaw can reveal information through NTFS handling in a way that bypasses the intended confidentiality boundary, especially where an attacker can interact with the device physically or through local media.

Impact: Exposure can range from limited file or metadata disclosure to intelligence that supports later compromise, such as helping an attacker map the system, find valuable data, or confirm the presence of sensitive material.

Practitioner Guidance

What to prioritise: Treat this as an exploited vulnerability first and a software hygiene issue second. If a system is exposed to physical access or shared hardware use, it deserves faster triage than a machine with strong local access controls and low-value data.

What to verify: Confirm whether the affected Windows estate includes laptops, kiosks, shared workstations, or systems that accept removable media. Those are the environments where a disclosure issue tied to local interaction is most likely to matter operationally.

Decision rule: If remediation must be delayed, shorten the delay window by tightening physical access, limiting removable media handling, and increasing monitoring around the host until the fix is applied and validated.

Practitioner takeaway: For a KEV-listed disclosure flaw, the key judgment is not whether the vulnerability is dramatic, but whether your environment gives an attacker enough local opportunity for the disclosure to matter.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• Guide: Zero-Day and Exploited Vulnerabilities Guide
• CVE-2025-24984 (Microsoft Windows NTFS Information Disclosure)
• Is CVE-2025-24054 (Microsoft Windows NTLM Hash Disclosure Spoofing) being exploited in the wild?
• Is CVE-2025-24993 (Microsoft Windows NTFS Heap-Based Buffer Overflow) being exploited in the wild?
• Is CVE-2025-24991 (Microsoft Windows NTFS Out-Of-Bounds Read) being exploited in the wild?