Windows Removes Legacy Agere Modem Driver ltmdm64.sys in October 2025 Update

Microsoft has removed the legacy Agere soft‑modem driver (ltmdm64.sys) from supported Windows images after identifying an elevation‑of‑privilege vulnerability tracked as CVE‑2025‑24990, and that removal was shipped in the October 2025 cumulative updates; any fax or analog modem hardware that depends on this specific driver will cease functioning on systems that install the update.

Background​

The Agere modem family (historically tied to Lucent/LSI and subsequently Agere) includes a Windows driver commonly named ltmdm64.sys, which provided analog data and fax modem support for many OEM laptops and add‑in cards over the past two decades. That driver has remained in some Windows images as an in‑box component for compatibility with legacy telephony hardware.
In mid‑October 2025 Microsoft’s Security Update Guide and October cumulative update release notes made two important points explicit: Microsoft acknowledged vulnerabilities in the third‑party Agere modem driver and took the atypical step of removing the ltmdm64.sys driver from the OS package rather than issuing an in‑place patch for continued compatibility. The removal appeared in the October 14, 2025 cumulative updates for Windows 10 and Windows 11.
Industry vulnerability trackers assign the issue the identifier CVE‑2025‑24990, describe it as an elevation‑of‑privilege issue (CWE‑822: Untrusted Pointer Dereference), and list a CVSS v3.1 score of 7.8 (High). Those aggregators also note the practical mitigation Microsoft chose: removal of the driver from current Windows images.

---

What changed in October 2025​

Removal, not a patch​

Instead of shipping a revised signed driver, Microsoft removed ltmdm64.sys from the cumulative update payloads and prevented the driver from being provisioned to updated systems. That means:

• Systems that install the October 14, 2025 cumulative updates will no longer receive ltmdm64.sys as an in‑box driver.
• Devices that require that driver will stop enumerating or functioning normally once the update is applied.
• Microsoft explicitly recommends removing dependencies on affected hardware and planning migration strategies where fax or dial‑up modem functionality remains required.

The removal is documented in Microsoft’s KB/OS release notes for the October 2025 cumulative updates and reinforced by multiple security trackers and community reporting.

Which KBs contain the removal​

The driver removal is referenced in the October 14, 2025 cumulative update release notes for both Windows 10 (example: KB5066791) and Windows 11 (example: KB5066835). These KB pages explicitly call out the removal of ltmdm64.sys as a compatibility change.

---

Who is affected​

No impact for most modern users​

For the vast majority of home and enterprise users who no longer rely on analog modems or fax‑over‑modem hardware, this change is purely protective: the vulnerable kernel component is removed and no functionality is lost.

High impact for legacy fax/modem workflows​

Organizations and appliances that continue to depend on local analog modems—commonly in:

• Fax servers using local modem cards,
• Point‑of‑sale or medical devices that rely on modems for legacy communications,
• Industrial control systems or field devices that use PSTN fallback,
• Remote site appliances that dial out for status or reporting—

will see immediate operational disruption if they accept the October 2025 cumulative updates without alternate arrangements. Administrators of such environments should treat the removal as an operational incident that needs migration planning.

Enterprise considerations​

Enterprises that maintain large fleets should inventory driver and device dependencies centrally (SCCM, Intune, or other asset‑management tools) and classify systems by criticality before applying broad cumulative updates. In some scenarios, short‑term deferral of the update may be necessary while migration paths are implemented—but deferral exposes systems to other important security fixes contained in the same cumulative update and should be considered a last‑resort, temporary measure.

---

Technical summary and verification​

• Driver name and path: ltmdm64.sys, typically located under C:\Windows\System32\drivers on x64 Windows images. This filename appears repeatedly in driver inventories and Microsoft update notes.
• CVE identifier: CVE‑2025‑24990; classification: Elevation of Privilege; weakness mapped to CWE‑822 (Untrusted Pointer Dereference) according to public CVE aggregators. The scoring published by trackers is CVSS v3.1 = 7.8 (High).
• Microsoft action: Removal of the driver from supported Windows OS images via October 2025 cumulative updates (documented in Windows update release notes).

Note on exploitability: public vendor advisories sometimes withhold deep technical detail while patches or removal actions are published. At the time of the removal Microsoft’s public guidance focuses on the action taken (removal) and the operational impact; technical exploit chains or reliable public proof‑of‑concepts were not broadly published in third‑party research feeds at the time of reporting. Treat technical speculation about exact exploitation pathways with caution until independent security research publishes in‑depth analyses.

---

Why Microsoft removed the driver (analysis)​

Removing a legacy kernel driver instead of issuing a compatibility patch is an uncommon but defensible choice when:

• The driver is third‑party code no longer maintained by the original vendor or where upstream remediation is impractical.
• The driver runs in kernel mode, hosting a high‑privilege attack surface where memory corruption or pointer misuse can escalate to SYSTEM or kernel compromise.
• Compatibility fixing would require significant reengineering, re‑signing, or architectural changes that Microsoft judges unsafe or time‑consuming relative to the security risk.

Removing the vulnerable component eliminates the attack surface for updated systems immediately and predictably. The tradeoff is operational: dependent hardware loses functionality. In this case Microsoft prioritized platform security and accepted the compatibility disruption that follows.
Strengths of the removal approach:

• Definitive risk closure for updated systems—no vulnerable code remains to be abused.
• Avoids long tails of partial fixes that can still be misused.
• Reduces future maintenance burden from an obsolete, rarely used driver.

Risks / downsides:

• Operational disruption for workflows that still rely on the driver (fax, legacy communications).
• Support burden for IT teams that must triage exceptions or roll back updates for specific machines.
• Potential for shadow IT where users seek unsupported workarounds, increasing security risk.

These tradeoffs explain why Microsoft reserves removal for select situations where remediation is not practical.

---

Short‑term detection, mitigation, and response​

Immediate checklist for administrators​

• Inventory: locate any systems referencing ltmdm64.sys or Agere modem drivers. Quick local checks:
• Check driver path: C:\Windows\System32\drivers\ltmdm64.sys.
• List modem class devices: Get‑PnpDevice -Class Modem (PowerShell).
• Query loaded driver via SCM: sc query ltmdm64.
• Decide update policy:
• If the local modem is non‑essential, apply the October 2025 cumulative updates and accept the removal.
• If the modem is essential, plan a controlled deferral only after assessing the risk of missing other fixes in that cumulative update. Maintain compensating controls (isolation, limited network connectivity) while a migration plan is executed.
• Short‑term mitigations:
• Replace local modem dependencies with network or cloud fax gateways (SaaS) where feasible.
• For inflexible legacy appliances, consider an isolated legacy host retained for required modem use, segmenting it from production networks and applying strict compensating controls. This is an operational stopgap, not a long‑term fix.
• Communication:
• Notify affected business units and compliance teams; provide timelines and steps to preserve continuity of operations.
• Log and track incidents where functionality is lost after the update for audit and remediation planning.

Detection and monitoring tips​

• Watch for modem‑related alerts and sudden device removal events after applying the October cumulative update.
• Monitor helpdesk tickets for surge in faxing failures or modem‑operated device errors.
• Use EDR and SIEM to hunt for processes or drivers attempting to access legacy modem device interfaces unexpectedly—this could indicate attempted exploitation or misconfiguration.

---

Migration strategies (practical options)​

• Move to a cloud fax service or SIP/VoIP gateway with integrated fax‑to‑email functionality. These remove reliance on local hardware and place the fax function behind managed, updated services.
• Replace physical modem cards with modern, supported USB or PCIe modems whose vendors offer signed drivers compatible with current Windows builds—validate vendor support and driver signing before procurement.
• For highly regulated cases (legal, healthcare, government) where fax must be retained on‑premises, choose an actively maintained appliance that provides vendor‑supported, signed drivers and a documented security lifecycle.
• If replacement is impossible, maintain an isolated, minimally connected legacy host for modem operations and accept the increased maintenance overhead and residual risk. This should include strict backup, physical controls, network segmentation, and logging.

---

Risk assessment and long‑term lessons​

This event underscores three strategic points for IT teams and security leaders:

• Maintain a current inventory of third‑party kernel drivers and their vendor support lifecycles. Legacy drivers are an increasing source of kernel vulnerabilities and are costly to mitigate once discovered.
• Plan migrations away from hardware and software dependencies that lack active vendor support. Legacy telephony/analog components are especially brittle.
• Accept that platform vendors may remove in‑box components if remediation is impractical—organizations must be prepared operationally for that scenario and prioritize modernization where business processes depend on older hardware.

From an ecosystem perspective, the Agere driver removal is a case study in balancing backward compatibility and platform security. It signals that vendors will not indefinitely tolerate unmaintained kernel components that pose systemic risk.

---

Questions about exploitation and verification (cautionary notes)​

Public documentation and vendor advisories sometimes omit exploit mechanics to avoid accelerating attacks. At the time Microsoft removed the driver, the public advisories stressed the removal action and operational guidance more than detailed exploit chains. Security professionals should therefore:

• Treat any public technical claims about the exact root cause or exploit technique as unverified until independent security research or detailed vendor technical notes are published.
• Prioritize the operational guidance (driver removal and migration) as the immediate defensive action rather than awaiting deeper technical analysis.

Where available, consult multiple independent sources (vendor KBs, reputable vulnerability databases, major security news outlets) before acting on technical exploit descriptions. In this case Microsoft’s release notes plus CVE aggregators and industry reporting provide a consistent narrative about removal and impact.

---

Practical remediation playbook​

• Run a fleet‑wide driver inventory within 48 hours:
• Query for ltmdm64.sys and modem class devices.
• Produce a list of business functions tied to identified devices.
• Segregate and protect any systems that must remain unpatched temporarily:
• Use strict network segmentation and isolate from internet‑facing resources.
• Restrict administrative access and tightly monitor logs and EDR telemetry.
• Schedule updates and migrations:
• Pilot the cumulative update on a subset that can accept hardware loss.
• For critical systems needing the modem, prepare a migration plan to an alternate solution and schedule an update window.
• Communicate to stakeholders:
• Provide timelines and fallback arrangements for teams that rely on fax or dial‑up services.
• Coordinate with vendors of industry‑specific devices (medical, POS) to learn of compatible replacements or vendor support statements.
• After migration:
• Retire or securely store legacy hardware; update asset records and compliance documentation.
• Validate that endpoint imaging and provisioning no longer include the deprecated driver.

---

Conclusion​

Microsoft’s removal of the Agere modem driver ltmdm64.sys in the October 2025 cumulative updates (documented in the Windows update KB notes) represents a decisive security action that eliminates a high‑risk kernel component but also forces operational change for anyone still dependent on legacy fax/modem hardware. Administrators should inventory affected systems, prioritize migration to supported alternatives (cloud or modern hardware), and avoid making long‑term exceptions that leave endpoints vulnerable to other patched issues. The removal demonstrates a broader platform security trend: when legacy kernel components cannot be safely remediated, vendors will remove them to protect the ecosystem—forcing organizations to modernize their operational dependencies.

---

Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center

 

[ChatGPT]

CISA’s latest update to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog adds five new CVEs and raises the operational urgency for administrators, security teams, and federal agencies to accelerate patching, mitigation, and inventorying activities across mixed Windows and multi‑vendor environments.

Background​

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s KEV Catalog exists to convert evidence of active exploitation into operational deadlines under Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 22‑01. That directive requires Federal Civilian Executive Branch (FCEB) agencies to remediate cataloged vulnerabilities by prescribed due dates and serves as a practical prioritization layer for private‑sector organizations that want to avoid the highest‑probability, highest‑impact risks.
CISA’s October additions are explicitly based on evidence of active exploitation. When CISA places a CVE in KEV it is not merely informative — it becomes an operational trigger requiring rapid action for federal entities and a de‑facto escalation for enterprise security programs. The update also underlines a recurring pattern: adversaries mix age and novelty, exploiting both legacy software and freshly disclosed OS components.

---

What CISA added this week — quick summary​

CISA’s alert lists five vulnerabilities newly added to the KEV Catalog:

• CVE‑2016‑7836 — SKYSEA Client View: Improper authentication that allowed remote code execution in older agents.
• CVE‑2025‑6264 — Rapid7/Velociraptor: Incorrect default permissions permitting dangerous artifact execution without required checks.
• CVE‑2025‑24990 — Microsoft Windows: Untrusted pointer dereference in legacy Agere/ltmdm64.sys modem driver — Microsoft removed the driver in the October cumulative update.
• CVE‑2025‑47827 — IGEL OS: Use of a key past its expiration date / boot integrity issue affecting IGEL OS 10; later IGEL clarified the issue is limited to EOL OS 10 and not current OS versions.
• CVE‑2025‑59230 — Microsoft Windows: Improper access control in Windows Remote Access Connection Manager allowing local privilege escalation.

Each of these entries is now part of the KEV Catalog; federal agencies must treat them as priorities under BOD 22‑01, and private organizations are strongly urged to follow suit.

---

Overview: why these entries matter now​

CISA’s KEV process is conservative by design — not every CVE is listed, only those with credible evidence of real‑world exploitation. That means each addition signals ongoing, observed abuse or strong telemetry linking a vulnerability to active campaigns. When a KEV designation lands, the practical effect for defenders is immediate: re‑prioritize remediation workflows, escalate ticket SLAs, and apply mitigations or compensating controls until patches are in place.
From a threat modeling perspective the new entries illustrate two recurring attack strategies:

• Attackers leverage legacy, widely distributed code (for example, in‑box drivers or long‑lived enterprise agents) because such components are often present on many systems and may be left unpatched or unmanaged. CVE‑2025‑24990 (the Agere modem driver) exemplifies this pattern.
• Adversaries also weaponize administrative tooling or management channels when those channels are insufficiently gated. CVE‑2025‑6264 in Velociraptor — an incident response/forensics tool — shows how powerful tooling, if misconfigured or shipped with overly permissive defaults, can be repurposed for lateral movement or endpoint takeover.

These trends mean that asset inventory, privileged access controls, and configuration hardening remain as important as patch cadence.

---

Deep dives (CVE‑by‑CVE)​

CVE‑2016‑7836 — SKYSEA Client View: improper authentication (remote code execution)​

• What it is: A long‑standing authentication flaw in SKYSEA Client View agents that can be abused over the network to execute arbitrary code on affected endpoints. This vulnerability was originally disclosed in 2016–2017 and has seen exploitation in the wild in past years.
• Current KEV rationale: CISA added this older CVE to KEV because evidence indicates attackers continue to target unmanaged or internet‑exposed instances of the product. The risk profile is particularly high in environments where legacy endpoint agents remain reachable from untrusted networks.
• Operational impact for Windows shops: Any Windows system running vulnerable SKYSEA agents that are reachable beyond trusted management networks is at elevated risk. For many organizations the practical remediation steps are:
• Inventory all devices for SKYSEA Client View agent versions and network exposure.
• Apply vendor patches or upgrade to the latest fixed agent immediately.
• Block agent management ports at the network edge and force agent communication over VPNs or management VLANs where possible.
• Sources used: vendor advisories and national CERT summaries confirm both the technical details and ongoing exploitation reports.

CVE‑2025‑6264 — Rapid7 Velociraptor: incorrect default permissions​

• What it is: A permissions/configuration design flaw in Velociraptor’s artifact execution controls. The Admin.Client.UpdateClientConfig artifact lacked an enforced permission check, allowing users with the COLLECT_CLIENT capability (commonly assigned to the “Investigator” role) to collect and execute a configuration update artifact with elevated effects. In short, a fairly privileged investigator account could be leveraged to run actions that should require higher privileges.
• Why it’s significant: Attacker‑controlled or misused incident‑response tooling is a recurring post‑compromise path. Tools like Velociraptor run with elevated privileges by design; default‑permissive setups expose a massive risk surface if role separation and least‑privilege principles aren’t enforced. Rapid7 and Velociraptor’s project maintainers released fixes and clearly advised upgrades to 0.74.3 or later.
• Recommended actions:
• Upgrade Velociraptor to the fixed release (0.74.3 or later).
• Audit RBAC roles and remove non‑essential COLLECT_CLIENT assignments from accounts that shouldn’t have endpoint modification capabilities.
• Use Velociraptor’s basic artifacts mechanism and artifact verifier to restrict what can run on endpoints.
• Corroboration: independent vulnerability databases, vendor advisories, and third‑party writeups corroborate the behavioral risk and the remediation path.

CVE‑2025‑24990 — Microsoft Windows: untrusted pointer dereference (legacy Agere modem driver)​

• What it is: An untrusted pointer dereference in the ltmdm64.sys Agere modem driver that could allow a local attacker to escalate privileges. Microsoft identified the driver as third‑party legacy code present in Windows images and took the unusual step of removing the driver from the October 2025 cumulative updates rather than issuing a patch for continued compatibility.
• Why removal matters: Removing an in‑box driver reduces long‑term attack surface but introduces immediate operational trade‑offs: any systems or hardware that depend on that driver (for example, old fax/modem hardware) may cease working after the update. Microsoft explicitly warns organizations to remove dependencies on such hardware.
• What defenders should do:
• Inventory endpoints for any hardware or software that depends on the Agere ltmdm64.sys driver.
• If mission‑critical legacy modems are required, plan a migration or maintain isolated, offline systems that are not exposed to general networks.
• Deploy the October cumulative updates to remove the vulnerable driver from supported Windows images, unless a documented business justification requires an alternative mitigation and a risk acceptance process.
• Evidence and confirmation: Microsoft’s advisory and multiple vulnerability trackers document the removal and the CVSS assessment; press coverage of the October patch cycle confirms the driver removal as the operational remediation step.

CVE‑2025‑47827 — IGEL OS: use of a key past its expiration date / boot chain integrity (IGEL OS 10)​

• What it is: A boot‑chain integrity weakness reported in IGEL OS 10 where the system did not verify the cryptographic signature of the system partition; an attacker with boot access could potentially boot an alternate system partition. IGEL clarified the issue and noted that only the no‑longer‑maintained IGEL OS 10 is affected; IGEL OS 11 and 12 perform signature checks and are not affected.
• Practical guidance:
• If any IGEL OS 10 endpoints remain in production, they should be upgraded or retired. Unmaintained OS versions present systemic risk beyond this single CVE.
• Segregate thin clients and management networks; treat out‑of‑support endpoints as high‑risk assets requiring urgent remediation.
• Caveat: IGEL’s vendor statement indicates active mitigations for current versions and a clear path: upgrade to maintained OS versions rather than patch‑backporting EOL images.

CVE‑2025‑59230 — Microsoft Windows: improper access control (Remote Access Connection Manager)​

• What it is: An improper access control vulnerability in Windows’ Remote Access Connection Manager that could allow a local, authorized attacker to elevate privileges. Microsoft documented affected versions and provided mitigation guidance as part of the October patch cycle.
• Remediation guidance:
• Apply Microsoft’s cumulative updates and any recommended mitigations from the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) and the vendor update guide.
• Enforce least privilege on local accounts, reduce the number of users with skills or access that could be misused for local escalation, and monitor for unusual privilege escalation events in endpoint telemetry.

---

Practical remediation checklist (for sysadmins and SOCs)​

• Inventory and expose: Run an asset discovery sweep to identify:
• Endpoints with SKYSEA Client View agents and Velociraptor clients.
• Any devices using legacy Agere modem hardware or drivers.
• IGEL OS 10 devices and other EOL thin clients.
• Patch or remove:
• Apply vendor patches or upgrades (Velociraptor 0.74.3+, updated SKYSEA agents, IGEL OS 11/12, Microsoft cumulative updates).
• Install the October 2025 cumulative updates that remove ltmdm64.sys where applicable.
• Harden configuration:
• Restrict who can run or collect artifacts in Velociraptor; move to stricter RBAC and use artifact verification.
• Enforce network segmentation to block management/control ports from untrusted networks.
• Compensating controls:
• For systems that cannot be patched immediately, apply virtual patching: firewall rules, endpoint detection rules, host‑based access controls, and strict ACLs.
• Increase monitoring of authentication and configuration‑change events for IR tooling and legacy drivers.
• Incident response readiness:
• Prepare playbooks for exploitation scenarios tied to these CVEs (local privilege escalation, agent abuse, boot compromise).
• Validate detection‑capability coverages (EDR/telemetry) for indicators like unexpected artifact runs, driver loads, or boot‑time anomalies.

---

Analysis: strengths and strategic risks in the KEV approach​

Strengths​

• Operational focus — KEV emphasizes evidence‑driven risk, which helps teams prioritize the vulnerabilities that attackers are actually exploiting rather than chasing CVSS scores alone. This reduces wasted effort and directs scarce resources to high‑probability threats.
• Policy force multiplier — BOD 22‑01 converted intelligence into operational deadlines for federal agencies, creating a robust governance mechanism that cascades into vendor and contractor remediation cycles. The result: faster patch cycles and clearer accountability for high‑risk CVEs.
• Visibility across the stack — KEV entries frequently cover endpoint agents, networking gear, and application platforms; this cross‑stack perspective forces coordination between app, infra, and endpoint teams. The current batch is a good example, spanning vendor‑supplied agents, incident response tooling, OS drivers, and thin‑client OSes.

Risks and limitations​

• Operational burden & false dichotomy — KEV’s laser focus on exploited vulnerabilities is necessary, but teams can misinterpret it as the only list that matters. That risk creates a false dichotomy: KEV items are urgent, but non‑KEV high‑severity bugs can still be weaponized via chains. Vulnerability management programs must balance KEV responses with broader patch hygiene.
• Legacy removal trade‑offs — Microsoft’s removal of the Agere driver mitigates a genuine risk, but it forces organizations to confront hardware dependencies. Removing drivers can break legacy workflows, and organizations that require those workflows face a difficult choice between security and functional compatibility. The decision must be explicit, documented, and temporary — not accidental.
• Supply‑chain and tool risk — The Velociraptor case shows how trusted tooling can become an attack vector. Enterprise defenders must treat management and IR tools as potential risk surfaces: apply least privilege, segregate roles, and adopt defensible defaults before they are exploited.

---

Detection & hunting suggestions​

• Hunt for unusual artifact collects or configuration‑update artifacts in Velociraptor telemetry and SIEM logs; look for non‑standard accounts performing Admin.Client.UpdateClientConfig operations.
• Monitor for unexpected driver loads, particularly ltmdm64.sys related events, and detect attempts to use legacy modem APIs or driver I/O control codes. On patched systems, the driver should be absent or blocked after the October updates.
• For thin clients and boot‑integrity concerns, inspect UEFI logs and detect anomalies in signed partition verification attempts; any boot‑time replacement of system partitions should trigger immediate investigation.
• Baseline administrator and investigator role activity in IR tooling and create alerts for privilege escalation patterns, unusual artifact deployments, and sudden changes in RBAC assignments.

---

What organizations should change immediately​

• Treat KEV updates as triage priority: integrate CISA KEV feeds into your vulnerability-management pipeline and set automation to escalate KEV hits to immediate action tickets.
• Patch and upgrade: apply the vendor fixes for Velociraptor, SKYSEA, IGEL upgrades, and Microsoft cumulative updates; prioritize devices and systems that are externally reachable or hold privileged roles.
• Harden tooling: reduce artifact and admin privileges in response tooling, enforce RBAC, and enable artifact whitelisting/verification features where available.
• Inventory legacy dependencies: identify systems relying on removed drivers (ltmdm64.sys) and plan mitigations or replacements.

---

Community and reporting notes​

WindowsForum members and practitioners are already circulating operational checklists and playbooks tied to these KEV entries. Internal forum discussions emphasize pragmatic steps — inventory, isolate, migrate — and provide a shared set of heuristics for administrators who must balance uptime with security. For a concise Windows‑focused thread summarizing KEV action items and practical detections, see the community‑curated discussion that aggregates vendor guidance and local remediation checklists.

---

Final assessment and recommendations​

CISA’s KEV additions remind defenders of three immutable truths:

• Attackers favor predictable targets — legacy drivers, permissive defaults, and misconfigured management channels.
• Threat intelligence must translate into concrete operational timelines; KEV + BOD 22‑01 provides a useful mechanism to do that for federal entities and should be treated as a high‑urgency signal by the private sector as well.
• Mitigation is multi‑pronged: apply patches where available, enforce least privilege in management tooling, retire or isolate EOL software, and improve detection for the specific exploitation patterns highlighted by these CVEs.

Actionable priorities for the next 72 hours:

• Confirm presence or absence of the five affected components in your environment.
• Apply vendor‑supplied fixes or Microsoft’s October cumulative updates where required.
• Lock down management tooling roles (Velociraptor investigators) and network access to agent management ports.
• Document any business exceptions (for example, legacy modem hardware) with compensating controls and a clear sunset plan.

CISA’s KEV Catalog updates are blunt instruments — they push organizations to act on what is being exploited now. Use that pressure to close tactical gaps quickly and to fund the longer‑term work that prevents similar surprises: asset visibility, rigorous change control, and secure defaults for all management and incident response tooling.

---

In conclusion, this KEV addition is both a warning and an opportunity: an invitation to sharply reduce exposure to active threats by applying well‑scoped, immediate actions (patches, configuration hardening, and role audits) and by treating trusted tooling and legacy components with the same skepticism applied to externally exposed software. The cost of delay is measured not in ticket backlogs but in compromised endpoints — so prioritize accordingly.

---

Source: CISA CISA Adds Five Known Exploited Vulnerabilities to Catalog | CISA