VulnerabilityPublished 11 Dec 2025Updated 14 Jan 2026

CVE-2024-40593: Fortinet FortiAnalyzer · Improper Access Control

Affects Fortinet FortiAnalyzerSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Temporal metrics

Exploit Code Maturity: Functional
Remediation Level: Unavailable
Report Confidence: Confirmed

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Exploit Code Maturity: Functional: Functional exploit code is available. The code works in most situations where the vulnerability exists.
Remediation Level: Unavailable: There is either no solution available or it is impossible to apply.
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 11 Dec 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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 FortiAnalyzer	Affected 6.4.0 – 7.4.0 4 affected builds	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Apply vendor patches promptly once Fortinet releases updates addressing CVE-2024-40593. Monitor Fortinet advisories closely.
Restrict administrative access to Fortinet devices using strong authentication methods such as multi-factor authentication (MFA) and least privilege principles.
Limit access to the admin shell interface strictly to trusted personnel and monitor all admin shell sessions for unusual activity.
Rotate and revoke certificates and private keys that may have been exposed or are at risk, and replace them with new cryptographic material.
Implement network segmentation to isolate management interfaces from general network access, reducing the risk of credential compromise.
Conduct regular audits of administrative accounts and access logs to detect potential misuse.
Employ intrusion detection and prevention systems to identify anomalous behavior related to key access or admin shell usage.
Educate administrators on the risks of credential compromise and enforce strong password policies.
Consider deploying additional endpoint security controls on devices used for administration to prevent credential theft.
Develop incident response plans specifically addressing cryptographic key compromise scenarios.

Description

A key management errors vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.2, FortiAnalyzer 7.2.0 through 7.2.5, FortiAnalyzer 7.0 all versions, FortiAnalyzer 6.4 all versions, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.2, FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.5, FortiManager 7.0 all versions, FortiManager 6.4 all versions, FortiOS 7.6.0, FortiOS 7.4.4, FortiOS 7.2.7, FortiOS 7.0.14, FortiPortal 6.0 all versions may allow an authenticated admin to retrieve a certificate's private key via the device's admin shell.

Impact

For European organizations, the exposure of private keys due to this vulnerability could have significant consequences. Fortinet devices like FortiAnalyzer and FortiManager are commonly deployed for centralized logging, analysis, and management of network security devices. Compromise of private keys could allow attackers to decrypt VPN traffic, intercept or manipulate security logs, or impersonate network devices, undermining the confidentiality and trustworthiness of network security operations. This risk is particularly acute for sectors with stringent data protection requirements such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure operators. Additionally, the breach of cryptographic material could facilitate lateral movement within networks or persistent espionage. The requirement for administrative access limits the threat to insiders or attackers who have already compromised admin credentials, but the impact remains high due to the sensitive nature of the exposed keys. European organizations relying on Fortinet products for compliance with GDPR and other regulations must consider the potential for data breaches and regulatory penalties.

References

fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-24-133 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 14 Jan 2026, 14:52 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats