Fortinet FortiManager en FortiAnalyzer · Kwetsbaarheden Verholpen
Affects Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum FortinetSource GCVE Database
Public exploit available · CVSS 7.3 High · patch available →: patch Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum Fortinet as a priority.
Data as of 12 Nov 2026, 12:19 UTC
Thin evidence
One scorer or none| CNA (fortinet) | CVSS 3.1 | 7.3 |
|---|
- Patch
- Available
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H/E:P/RL:O/RC:CBase metrics
- Attack Vector
- Network
- Attack Complexity
- Low
- Privileges Required
- Low
- User Interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
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: 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: High
- There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
- Availability: High
- There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
- 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 10 Nov 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 12 Nov 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 |
|---|---|---|
| FortinetFortiManager | Affected
| Fixed in– |
| FortinetFortiAnalyzer | Affected
| Fixed in– |
| FortinetFortiManager Cloud | Affected
| Fixed in– |
AI-suggested
Fortinet has released patches addressing these vulnerabilities. Users of FortiManager, FortiAnalyzer, and their cloud and related products should apply the official updates provided by Fortinet to remediate these issues.
Description
Fortinet has addressed multiple vulnerabilities in FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer products, including their cloud versions and related products such as FortiManager Cloud, FortiAnalyzer Cloud, FortiAnalyzer-BigData, FortiSASE-Sovereign, and FortiSASE-Sovereign GUI. The specific vulnerabilities span a range of common weakness enumerations (CWEs) but no detailed impact or exploitation information is provided.
Impact
The vulnerabilities potentially affect the security posture of Fortinet FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer products and their cloud and related variants. The range of CWEs suggests risks including unauthorized access, code execution, data leakage, and denial of service. However, no confirmed exploitation or detailed impact scenarios are provided in the available data.
Summary
Multiple vulnerabilities affecting Fortinet's FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer product lines, including cloud and related variants, have been remediated. These vulnerabilities cover a broad spectrum of CWEs such as path traversal, injection flaws, buffer overflows, improper authentication, and others. No specific CVSS score or detailed technical impact is provided, and no known exploits in the wild have been reported. The vendor has issued fixes for these issues as indicated by the statement that vulnerabilities have been addressed.
- CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
- Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
- Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
- Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
- Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
- Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-116Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-134Use of Externally-Controlled Format String (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product uses a function that accepts a format string as an argument, but the format string originates from an external source.
Requirements
Choose a language that is not subject to this flaw.
Implementation
Ensure that all format string functions are passed a static string which cannot be controlled by the user, and that the proper number of arguments are always sent to that function as well. If at all possible, use functions that do not support the %n operator in format strings.
Build and Compilation
Run compilers and linkers with high warning levels, since they may detect incorrect usage.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-89Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (SQL Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #2OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
- Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
- Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
- SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter Tampering (opens in a new tab)
- Expanding Control over the Operating System from the Database (opens in a new tab)
- SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-91XML Injection (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly neutralize special elements that are used in XML, allowing attackers to modify the syntax, content, or commands of the XML before it is processed by an end system.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-122Heap-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #16
The product writes past the end of a buffer that was allocated on the heap.
Pre-design: Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (OS Command Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #9OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command before it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-1336Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product uses a template engine to insert or process externally-influenced input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements or syntax that can be interpreted as template expressions or other code directives when processed by the engine.
Architecture and Design
Choose a template engine that offers a sandbox or restricted mode, or at least limits the power of any available expressions, function calls, or commands.
Implementation
Use the template engine's sandbox or restricted mode, if available.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-798Use of Hard-coded Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key.
Architecture and Design
For outbound authentication: store passwords, keys, and other credentials outside of the code in a strongly-protected, encrypted configuration file or database that is protected from access by all outsiders, including other local users on the same system. Properly protect the key (CWE-320).
Architecture and Design
For inbound authentication: Rather than hard-code a default username and password, key, or other authentication credentials for first time logins, utilize a "first login" mode that requires the user to enter a unique strong password or key.
Architecture and Design
If the product must contain hard-coded credentials or they cannot be removed, perform access control checks and limit which entities can access the feature that requires the hard-coded credentials. For example, a feature might only be enabled through the system console instead of through a network connection.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code (Code Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-639Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #24OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Architecture and Design
For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
Architecture and Design
Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-290Authentication Bypass by Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
- Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
- Web Services API Signature Forgery Leveraging Hash Function Extension Weakness (opens in a new tab)
- Signature Spoof (opens in a new tab)
- Signature Spoofing by Misrepresentation (opens in a new tab)
- Session Credential Falsification through Prediction (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
The product writes past the end of a buffer that was allocated on the stack.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command (Argument Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-441Unintended Proxy or Intermediary (Confused Deputy) (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product receives a request, message, or directive from an upstream component, but the product does not sufficiently preserve the original source of the request before forwarding the request to an external actor that is outside of the product's control sphere.
Architecture and Design
Enforce the use of strong mutual authentication mechanism between the two parties.
Architecture and Design
Whenever a product is an intermediary or proxy for transactions between two other components, the proxy core should not drop the identity of the initiator of the transaction. The immutability of the identity of the initiator must be maintained and should be forwarded all the way to the target.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-434Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #12OWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment.
Architecture and Design
Generate a new, unique filename for an uploaded file instead of using the user-supplied filename, so that no external input is used at all.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Architecture and Design
Consider storing the uploaded files outside of the web document root entirely. Then, use other mechanisms to deliver the files dynamically.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- GCVE source
- db.gcve.eu
- Csaf Category
- csaf_security_advisory
- Csaf Version
- 2.0
- Publisher
- Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum
- Advisory ID
- NCSC-2026-0488
- CVE Count
- 43
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2026-126170, CVE-2026-126171, CVE-2026-126175, CVE-2026-126176, CVE-2026-126177, CVE-2026-126178, CVE-2026-126179, CVE-2026-126180, CVE-2026-126181, CVE-2026-126182, CVE-2026-126183, CVE-2026-126184, CVE-2026-126185, CVE-2026-126211, CVE-2026-126212, CVE-2026-126213, CVE-2026-126214, CVE-2026-126215, CVE-2026-126216, CVE-2026-126217, CVE-2026-126218, CVE-2026-126219, CVE-2026-126220, CVE-2026-126221, CVE-2026-126222, CVE-2026-126223, CVE-2026-126224, CVE-2026-126225, CVE-2026-126226, CVE-2026-126227, CVE-2026-126228, CVE-2026-126229, CVE-2026-126230, CVE-2026-126231, CVE-2026-126232, CVE-2026-126233, CVE-2026-126234, CVE-2026-126235, CVE-2026-126236, CVE-2026-126261, CVE-2026-126262, CVE-2026-126260
References
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-190 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-219 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-220 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-221 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-222 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-223 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-224 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-225 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-226 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-227 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-228 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-229 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-230 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-231 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-232 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-233 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-234 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-235 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-236 (opens in a new tab)
- fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-237 (opens in a new tab)
Community reviews
Related threats
- Fortinet FortiMail · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability
- Fortinet FortiOS · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability
- SAP-producten · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability
- Dell PowerProtect Data Domain · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenHighVulnerability
- Microsoft Developer Tools · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability