VulnerabilityPublished 10 Mar 2026Updated 12 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-48840: Fortinet FortiWeb · Improper Access Control

Affects Fortinet FortiWebSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.0 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

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

Temporal metrics

Exploit Code Maturity: Proof-of-Concept
Remediation Level: Unavailable
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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.
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 10 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 30 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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
FortinetFortiWeb	Affected >=7.6.0 <=7.6.3 >=7.4.0 <=7.4.8 >=7.2.0 <=7.2.12 >=7.0.0 <=7.0.12	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (39)

cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiweb:7.6.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiweb:7.6.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiweb:7.6.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiweb:7.6.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiweb:7.4.8:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiweb:7.4.7:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

Monitor Fortinet's official advisories closely for the release of patches addressing CVE-2025-48840 and apply them promptly across all affected FortiWeb devices.
Until patches are available, implement network-level access controls to restrict inbound traffic to FortiWeb management interfaces and administrative endpoints, limiting exposure to trusted IP addresses only.
Employ strict segmentation and firewall rules to isolate FortiWeb devices from untrusted networks, reducing the attack surface.
Enable and review detailed logging on FortiWeb devices to detect anomalous or suspicious requests that may indicate exploitation attempts.
Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on FortiWeb configurations and hostname restriction policies to identify potential bypasses or misconfigurations.
Consider deploying additional layers of web application security, such as runtime application self-protection (RASP) or enhanced intrusion detection systems, to detect and block malicious traffic that might bypass FortiWeb controls.
Educate security teams about this vulnerability to ensure rapid incident response if exploitation is suspected.
Review and tighten hostname restriction policies and access control lists to minimize the impact of any bypass.

Description

An authentication bypass by spoofing vulnerability in Fortinet FortiWeb 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiWeb 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiWeb 7.2 all versions, FortiWeb 7.0 all versions may allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to bypass hostname restrictions via a specially crafted request.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-48840 is the unauthorized bypass of hostname restrictions on Fortinet FortiWeb devices, which can undermine the integrity of web application security policies. This could allow attackers to access or manipulate web traffic that should be restricted, potentially leading to unauthorized access to sensitive web resources or enabling further exploitation chains such as injection attacks or data tampering. While confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, the integrity compromise can have cascading effects on the security posture of affected organizations. Enterprises using FortiWeb as a critical component of their web application defense may face increased risk of targeted attacks, especially if hostname restrictions are a key part of their security architecture. The vulnerability's ease of exploitation without authentication or user interaction increases the likelihood of exploitation attempts once public details or exploits emerge. This could lead to reputational damage, regulatory compliance issues, and potential financial losses due to unauthorized access or data integrity violations.

References

fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-097 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…