A client-side enforcement of server-side security vulnerability [CWE-602] in FortiSandbox may allow an authenticated attacker with at least read-only permission to execute unauthorized commands via crafted requests.

An improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability [CWE-89] in FortiSandbox may allow a privileged attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specifically crafted HTTP requests.

Multiple improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS Command vulnerabilities [CWE-78] in FortiSandbox may allow a privileged attacker to execute unauthorized commands via crafted requests.

Multiple Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerabilities [CWE-79] in FortiSandbox  may allow an authenticated attacker to perform cross-site scripting attack via crafted HTTP requests.

A reflected Cross-Site-Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSandbox before 3.0 may allow an attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via the backurl parameter in the file scan component.

A concurrent execution using shared resource with improper synchronization ('race condition') in the command shell of FortiSandbox before 3.2.2 may allow an authenticated attacker to bring the system into an unresponsive state via specifically orchestrated sequences of commands.

Multiple instances of improper neutralization of input during web page generation vulnerabilities in FortiSandbox before 4.0.0 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to perform an XSS attack via specifically crafted request parameters.

An improper access control vulnerability (CWE-284) in FortiSandbox may allow an authenticated, unprivileged attacker to download the device configuration file via the recovery URL.

An insufficient session expiration vulnerability [CWE-613] in FortiSandbox may allow an attacker to reuse the unexpired admin user session IDs to gain information about other users configured on the device, should the attacker be able to obtain that session ID (via other, hypothetical attacks)

A missing cryptographic steps vulnerability in the function that encrypts users' LDAP and RADIUS credentials in FortiSandbox before 4.0.1, FortiWeb before 6.3.12, FortiADC before 6.2.1, FortiMail 7.0.1 and earlier may allow an attacker in possession of the password store to compromise the confidentiality of the encrypted secrets.

Multiple instances of improper neutralization of input during web page generation vulnerabilities in FortiSandbox may allow an unauthenticated attacker to perform an XSS attack via specifically crafted request parameters.

A concurrent execution using shared resource with improper synchronization ('race condition') in the command shell of FortiSandbox may allow an authenticated attacker to bring the system into an unresponsive state via specifically orchestrated sequences of commands.

An instance of improper neutralization of special elements in FortiSandbox's sniffer module may allow an authenticated administrator to execute commands on the underlying system's shell via altering the content of its configuration file.

An insufficient session expiration vulnerability [CWE-613] in FortiSandbox may allow an attacker to reuse the unexpired admin user session IDs to gain information about other users configured on the device, should the attacker be able to obtain that session ID (via other, hypothetical attacks)

Multiple instances of heap-based buffer overflow in the command shell of FortiSandbox may allow an authenticated attacker to manipulate memory and alter its content by means of specifically crafted command line arguments.

An instance of small space of random values in FortiSandbox RPC API may allow an attacker in possession of a few information pieces about the state of the device to possibly predict valid session IDs.

An improper input validation vulnerability in the sniffer interface of FortiSandbox may allow an authenticated attacker to silently halt the sniffer via specifically crafted requests.

An improper access control vulnerability (CWE-284) in FortiSandbox may allow an authenticated, unprivileged attacker to download the device configuration file via the recovery URL.

An improper input validation vulnerability in the sniffer interface of FortiSandbox before 3.2.2 may allow an authenticated attacker to silently halt the sniffer via specifically crafted requests.

A improper neutralization of special elements used in an sql command ('sql injection') vulnerability [CWE-89] in Fortinet FortiSandbox version 4.2.0, 4.0.0 through 4.0.2, 3.2.0 through 3.2.3, 3.1.x and 3.0.x allows a remote and authenticated attacker with read permission to retrieve arbitrary files from the underlying Linux system via a crafted HTTP request.

An improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-295] in FortiManager 7.0.1 and below, 6.4.6 and below; FortiAnalyzer 7.0.2 and below, 6.4.7 and below; FortiOS 6.2.x and 6.0.x; FortiSandbox 4.0.x, 3.2.x and 3.1.x may allow a network adjacent and unauthenticated attacker to man-in-the-middle the communication between the listed products and some external peers.

An exposure of sensitive Information to an unauthorized actor vulnerability [CWE-200] in FortiSandbox may allow an authenticated attacker with at least read-only permission to read sensitive files via HTTP get requests.

Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface (WebUI) in Fortinet FortiSandbox before 2.1 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) serial parameter to alerts/summary/profile/; the (2) urlForCreatingReport parameter to csearch/report/export/; the (3) id parameter to analysis/detail/download/screenshot; or vectors related to (4) "Fortiview threats by users search filtered by vdom" or (5) "PCAP file download generated by the VM scan feature."

HTTP CONTINUATION Flood can be used to launch a serious DoS attack that can cause the crash of the target server with just one attacking machine (or even one TCP connection to the target).

It works by:- initiating an HTTP stream against the target- then sending headers and CONTINUATION frames with no ENDHEADERS flag set - that creates a never ending stream that could even cause an instant crash

This works because there's many HTTP/2 implementations do not properly limit or sanitize the amount of CONTINUATION frames sent within a single stream.

CVE-2024-27316 for Apache HTTP Server (httpd):HTTP/2 incoming headers exceeding the limit are temporarily buffered in nghttp2 in order to generate an informative HTTP 413 response. If a client does not stop sending headers, this leads to memory exhaustion.

CVE-2024-24549 for Apache Tomcat:When processing an HTTP/2 request, if the request exceeded any of theconfigured limits for headers, the associated HTTP/2 stream was notreset until after all of the headers had been processed.

CVE-2024-30255 for Envoy proxy (nghttp2):Envoy's HTTP/2 codec allows the peer to send an unlimited number of CONTINUATION frames even after exceeding Envoy's header map limits. This allows an attacker to send a sequence of CONTINUATION frames without the ENDHEADERS bit set causing CPU utilization, consuming approximately 1 core per 300Mbit/s of traffic.

CVE-2023-45288 for Golang:An attacker may cause an HTTP/2 endpoint to read arbitrary amounts of header data by sending an excessive number of CONTINUATION frames. Maintaining HPACK state requires parsing and processing all HEADERS and CONTINUATION frames on a connection. When a request's headers exceed MaxHeaderBytes, no memory is allocated to store the excess headers, but they are still parsed. This permits an attacker to cause an HTTP/2 endpoint to read arbitrary amounts of header data, all associated with a request which is going to be rejected. These headers can include Huffman-encoded data which is significantly more expensive for the receiver to decode than for an attacker to send.

CVE-2024-28182 for nghttp2:nghttp2 library keeps reading the unbounded number of HTTP/2 CONTINUATION frames even after a stream is reset to keep HPACK context in sync. This causes excessive CPU usage to decode HPACK stream.

CVE-2024-27983 for Node.js:An attacker can make the Node.js HTTP/2 server completely unavailable by sending a small amount of HTTP/2 frames packets with a few HTTP/2 frames inside. It is possible to leave some data in nghttp2 memory after reset when headers with HTTP/2 CONTINUATION frame are sent to the server and then a TCP connection is abruptly closed by the client triggering the Http2Session destructor while header frames are still being processed (and stored in memory) causing a race condition.

CVE-2024-3302 for Firefox:There was no limit to the number of HTTP/2 CONTINUATION frames that would be processed. A server could abuse this to create an Out of Memory condition in the browser.

An improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability [CWE-22] in FortiSandbox may allow a privileged attacker with super-admin profile and CLI access to execute arbitrary code via CLI.

An improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability |CWE-22] in FortiSandbox may allow an authenticated attacker with at least read-only permission to read arbitrary files via crafted http requests.