CVE-2023-48786VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-48786: Fortinet FortiClientEMS · Execute unauthorized code or commands

Affects Fortinet FortiClientEMSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.1Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N/E:P/RL:X/RC:C

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Temporal metrics

Exploit Code Maturity: Proof-of-Concept
Report Confidence: Confirmed

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Exploit Code Maturity: Proof-of-Concept: Proof-of-concept exploit code is available, or an attack demonstration is not practical for most systems. The code or technique is not functional in all situations and may require substantial modification by a skilled attacker.
Report Confidence: Confirmed: Detailed reports exist, or functional reproduction is possible (functional exploits may provide this). Source code is available to independently verify the assertions of the research, or the author or vendor of the affected code has confirmed the presence of the vulnerability.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Jun 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Fortinet FortiClientEMS	Affected =7.2.0 =7.0.0 =6.4.7 =6.4.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should prioritize the following actions: 1) Immediate patching: Apply the latest FortiClientEMS updates or patches as soon as they become available from Fortinet, ensuring all affected versions are upgraded to a secure release. 2) Restrict access: Limit administrative access to FortiClientEMS interfaces to trusted IP addresses and enforce strong multi-factor authentication to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 3) Network segmentation: Isolate FortiClientEMS servers within a secure management VLAN or subnet with strict firewall rules to prevent unauthorized internal requests from reaching sensitive systems. 4) Monitor logs: Implement enhanced logging and monitoring of FortiClientEMS server requests to detect unusual or unauthorized internal request patterns indicative of SSRF exploitation attempts. 5) Credential hygiene: Enforce strong password policies and regular credential rotation for accounts with access to FortiClientEMS to minimize risk from compromised credentials. 6) Conduct internal penetration testing and vulnerability assessments focused on SSRF and related attack vectors within the internal network to identify and remediate potential exploitation paths.

Description

A server-side request forgery vulnerability [CWE-918] in Fortinet FortiClientEMS version 7.4.0 through 7.4.2 and before 7.2.6 may allow an authenticated attacker to perform internal requests via crafted HTTP or HTTPS requests.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability could be substantial given the widespread deployment of Fortinet products in enterprises, government agencies, and critical infrastructure sectors. Exploitation could allow attackers to bypass perimeter defenses by leveraging the trusted position of FortiClientEMS within the network, potentially leading to unauthorized internal network access or manipulation of endpoint management functions. This could result in integrity violations such as unauthorized changes to endpoint configurations or deployment of malicious payloads. Although confidentiality and availability impacts are not directly indicated, the ability to perform internal requests could facilitate further attacks that compromise sensitive data or disrupt services. Organizations in regulated sectors such as finance, healthcare, and public administration in Europe could face compliance risks if this vulnerability is exploited. Additionally, the requirement for authentication means insider threats or compromised credentials could be leveraged to exploit this vulnerability, increasing risk in environments with weak credential management.

References

fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-23-342 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Jul 2025, 22:49 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats