CVE-2025-67685VulnerabilityPublished 13 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-67685: Fortinet FortiSandbox · Improper access control

Affects Fortinet FortiSandboxSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.4 Low.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.4Low

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

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

Temporal metrics

Exploit Code Maturity: Proof-of-Concept
Remediation Level: Official Fix
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: 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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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: Official Fix: A complete vendor solution is available. Either the vendor has issued an official patch, or an upgrade is available.
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 13 Jan 2026
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 2026-10-25.

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
FortinetFortiSandbox	Affected >=5.0.0 <=5.0.4 >=4.4.0 <=4.4.8 >=4.2.1 <=4.2.8 >=4.0.0 <=4.0.6	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (29)

cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortisandbox:5.0.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortisandbox:5.0.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortisandbox:5.0.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortisandbox:5.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortisandbox:5.0.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortisandbox:4.4.8:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

1. Apply patches or updates from Fortinet as soon as they become available to address CVE-2025-67685. 2. Restrict access to the FortiSandbox management interface to trusted administrators only, using network segmentation, VPNs, or jump hosts. 3. Enforce strong authentication mechanisms, including multi-factor authentication (MFA), for all FortiSandbox user accounts, especially those with high privileges. 4. Regularly audit and monitor FortiSandbox user accounts and access logs to detect unauthorized or suspicious activity. 5. Limit the privileges of user accounts to the minimum necessary to reduce the risk of exploitation. 6. Implement network segmentation to isolate FortiSandbox and sensitive internal services, minimizing the impact of SSRF proxying. 7. Disable or restrict access to unnecessary plaintext internal endpoints that could be targeted via SSRF. 8. Conduct internal penetration testing and vulnerability assessments to identify potential exploitation paths. 9. Educate administrators on the risks of credential compromise and enforce strong password policies. 10. Maintain up-to-date incident response plans to quickly address any detected exploitation attempts.

Description

CVE-2025-67685 is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability affecting multiple versions of Fortinet FortiSandbox (4.0.x through 5.0.4). It allows an authenticated attacker to send crafted HTTP requests that proxy internal requests to plaintext endpoints. The vulnerability requires authentication and does not allow arbitrary internal request types, limiting its impact. The CVSS score is low (3.4) due to limited confidentiality and integrity impact, no availability impact, and the need for high privileges. No known exploits are reported in the wild.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-67685 is primarily related to potential unauthorized internal network reconnaissance and limited data exposure within internal plaintext services. Since exploitation requires authenticated access with high privileges, the risk is mitigated if strong access controls and credential management are enforced. However, if an attacker compromises credentials or insider threats exist, they could leverage this vulnerability to pivot into internal network segments, potentially exposing sensitive internal systems or data. This could undermine the confidentiality and integrity of internal communications and security monitoring processes. The vulnerability does not affect availability, so denial-of-service or system outages are unlikely. Organizations in critical infrastructure sectors, such as energy, finance, and government, which often deploy FortiSandbox for advanced threat detection, may face increased risk if internal network segmentation is weak. The limited scope of plaintext endpoints reduces the severity but does not eliminate the threat of lateral movement or information gathering within internal networks.

References

fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-25-783 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…