VulnerabilityPublished 11 Mar 2025Updated 14 Jan 2026

CVE-2024-52960: Fortinet FortiSandbox · Improper Access Control

Affects Fortinet FortiSandboxSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 4.2 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.2Medium

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:F/RL:X/RC:X

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: Functional

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: Functional: Functional exploit code is available. The code works in most situations where the vulnerability exists.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Mar 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 FortiSandbox	Affected 3.0.0 – 5.0.0 7 affected builds	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Restrict read-only access to FortiSandbox strictly to trusted and verified users, minimizing the attack surface.
Implement strong authentication mechanisms, including multi-factor authentication (MFA), to reduce the risk of account compromise.
Monitor FortiSandbox logs and network traffic for unusual or unauthorized command execution attempts, enabling early detection of exploitation attempts.
Segregate FortiSandbox management interfaces from general network access using network segmentation and firewall rules.
Regularly review and audit user permissions to ensure least privilege principles are enforced.
Stay in close contact with Fortinet for official patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available.
Consider deploying additional endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to detect anomalous behavior resulting from exploitation.
Conduct internal security awareness training to highlight the risks of credential compromise and the importance of access controls. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control tightening, monitoring, and proactive operational security tailored to FortiSandbox environments.

Description

A client-side enforcement of server-side security vulnerability [CWE-602] in Fortinet FortiSandbox version 5.0.0, 4.4.0 through 4.4.6 and before 4.2.7 allows an authenticated attacker with at least read-only permission to execute unauthorized commands via crafted requests.

Impact

For European organizations, exploitation of CVE-2024-52960 could lead to unauthorized command execution within FortiSandbox environments, potentially allowing attackers to manipulate sandbox operations or interfere with malware analysis processes. This could degrade the integrity of threat detection and response workflows, leading to delayed or inaccurate threat identification. Although confidentiality and availability are not directly impacted, the integrity compromise could facilitate further attacks or evasion techniques by adversaries. Organizations in sectors with high reliance on FortiSandbox for security operations—such as finance, telecommunications, critical infrastructure, and government—may face increased risk of targeted attacks leveraging this vulnerability. The medium severity score indicates moderate risk, but the ease of exploitation by any authenticated user with read-only access raises concerns about insider threats or compromised low-privilege accounts. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future exploitation. European entities must consider the operational impact of potential sandbox manipulation and the broader implications for their cybersecurity posture.

References

fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-24-305 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 14 Jan 2026, 14:42 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats