I’ve been through CISA's Known Exploited list for Oct 8-16 and pulled out what matters for small-office and SMB environments.

Patch now: \- Ivanti Connect Secure CVE-2026-104935: auth bypass to RCE. If it's on your edge, patch and assume compromise until you've worked through CISA's guidance. \- Windows Shell CVE-2026-96951: Mark of the Web bypass, fixed in this month's Patch Tuesday. Push it to anything that opens email attachments. \- PAN-OS CVE-2026-0322: urgent if the management interface is reachable from anywhere it shouldn't be. \- Cisco Secure Email Gateway CVE-2026-76519: AMP path. Check your version against Cisco's advisory.

Batch: \- FortiOS CVE-2025-61624: path traversal, but needs admin access first. Roll it into your next window. \- ProFTPD mod\copy CVE-2015-3306: ancient but still being exploited. If FTP is still on anywhere, switch to SFTP.

No KEV hits this week for Proxmox, TrueNAS, UniFi, pfSense, Synology, or QNAP.

Disclosure: I put together a weekly digest of this. Not dropping a link, but happy to answer questions about any of these here.

Researchers at Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 published an investigation into a sophisticated attack against a telecommunications provider.

The original intrusion occurred in September 2024, but the newly published analysis documents previously unreported malware.

Attackers initially exploited CVE-2024-47575 to compromise a FortiManager management appliance.

They obtained configuration files and sensitive information associated with more than 500 FortiGate firewalls.

The attackers subsequently deployed malware called PEERSTITCH.

Its unusual feature is that it operates inside the memory of legitimate firewall processes rather than maintaining a conventional malware file on disk.

The implant could manipulate VPN security checks while blending into normal network activity.

The researchers did not establish that all 500 managed firewalls were compromised.

This is an excellent example of why traditional antivirus scanning cannot detect every attack.

Malware operating in memory may leave fewer conventional file-based indicators.

Disclaimer: The goal of this post is not to bring the pitchforks out and talk about CyberSecurity vendors and their security based on CVEs. No, I do not think Cisco is an insecure company and I do think they are doing a great thing for the community by being up front, disclosing and fixing vulnerabilities discovered in their products.

This is in direct reference to the following post in r/sysadmin about 2 weeks ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/1wwlgqq/todays\reminder\that\every\security\appliance\is/

You will notice in this post that I made one of the top comments to bring awareness to the lack of attention that is given to CVEs when it is a non-Fortinet product. Well, it just happened again.

Cisco released a 9.8 CVE for their Secure Mail appliance on October 14. The details are available at the following link: http://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-esa-afw-zqYJkjxp

The content in this is important but irrelevant to my point. In the release of this vulnerability, there are only 4 mentions (by my search of "CVE-2026-76519") of this:

https://www.reddit.com/search/?q=%22CVE-2026-76519%22&cId=3d232678-6f60-4ffb-940a-de3665695be1&iId=6d9cd08d-e00c-46e4-bae4-638f39723fe0

If you do a search of the FortiMail CVE, you will see there are 17 mentions.

https://www.reddit.com/search/?q=%22CVE-2026-104286%22&cId=0e04f247-a490-4114-a405-b6ccfac473ce&iId=fd67515e-4b1e-44cd-bc8f-a4bc68fb59f2

And within some of these posts, you will see the "insecure CVE brigade" coming in force.

Now I know some time has elapsed over the results of this search, but they all happened within 4 days of each other while the vast majority of these mentions happened within 2 days (the same time period was this Cisco search).

All that being said, my point is that it is very interesting that the same level of coverage is not being extended even when on paper, the two vulnerabilities being compared look very similar. Also, you would think it is more coverage worthy when a second critical CVE was found in the same product within the same month.

Putting on my tin foil hat, I will say, I believe there are other powers at work (besides just the goal of sharing information) to target certain vendors for whatever reason to paint them in a worse off light than others.

However, the important piece in all of this, is to reiterate that the companies who are transparent about CVEs and actually fix them, are the ones who deserve the trust of protecting the digital assets we need to secure.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

This vulnerability allows remote attackers to bypass authentication on affected installations of Fortinet FortiSandbox. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The ZDI has assigned a CVSS rating of 7.3. The following CVEs are assigned: CVE-2026-107656.

This vulnerability allows remote attackers to bypass authentication on affected installations of Fortinet FortiSandbox. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The ZDI has assigned a CVSS rating of 7.3. The following CVEs are assigned: CVE-2026-107656.

This vulnerability allows remote attackers to create a denial-of-service condition on affected installations of Fortinet FortiSandbox. Authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability. The ZDI has assigned a CVSS rating of 4.9. The following CVEs are assigned: CVE-2026-106170.

This vulnerability allows remote attackers to create a denial-of-service condition on affected installations of Fortinet FortiSandbox. Authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability. The ZDI has assigned a CVSS rating of 4.9. The following CVEs are assigned: CVE-2026-106170.

An improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL Command ("SQL Injection") vulnerability [CWE-89] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiMail 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiMail 7.4.0 through 7.4.5, FortiMail 7.2.0 through 7.2.8 allows an authenticated attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specifically crafted HTTP or HTTPS requests.

A improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('path traversal') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSIEM 7.5.0 may allow attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specially crafted packets.

A missing authorization vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSIEM 7.5.0 may allow attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via Specially crafted HTTP requests

A Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key [CWE-321] in FortiSandbox and FortiSandbox Cloud API may allow an unauthenticated attacker to access some endpoints via specially crafted HTTP requests

An Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability [CWE-89] in FortiAnalyzer, FortiManager, FortiManager Cloud and FortiAnalyzer Cloud may allow a low privileged user to execute arbitrary commands via crafted requests.

An Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability [CWE-89] in FortiAnalyzer, FortiManager, FortiManager Cloud and FortiAnalyzer Cloud may allow a low privileged user to execute arbitrary commands via crafted requests.

A Double Free vulnerability [CWE-415] in FortiOS, FortiProxy and FortiSwitch may allow a local authenticated attacker to crash the newcli daemon via crafted CLI commands.

An Uncaught Exception vulnerability [CWE-248] in FortiSandbox may allow a privileged attacker to deny access to the GUI and CLI persistently via crafted HTTP requests.

A improper neutralization of special elements used in an os command ('os command injection') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiManager 8.0.0, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.6, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.2 through 7.6.6 may allow attacker to escalation of privilege via specially crafted packets

An Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability [CWE-89] in FortiAnalyzer, FortiManager, FortiManager Cloud and FortiAnalyzer Cloud may allow a low privileged user to execute arbitrary commands via crafted requests.

An Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability [CWE-89] in FortiAnalyzer, FortiManager, FortiManager Cloud and FortiAnalyzer Cloud may allow a low privileged user to execute arbitrary commands via crafted requests.

An Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel vulnerability [CWE-288] in FortiSandbox GUI may allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to bypass authentication via crafted HTTP requests.

A improper locking vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 8.0.0, FortiOS 7.6.4 through 7.6.6 may allow an unauthenticated attacker with network access to the device to cause a denial of service of the HTTPS management interface via crafted HTTP requests.

An improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('OS Command Injection') vulnerability [CWE-78] in FortiManager fgfmd daemon may allow a remote attacker impersonating a fortimanager cluster node to execute unauthorized code or commands via specially crafted packets. Impersonation of a Fortimanager cluster node requires possessing the node's certificate and private key.

A Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key [CWE-321] in FortiSandbox and FortiSandbox Cloud API may allow an unauthenticated attacker to access some endpoints via specially crafted HTTP requests

A Double Free vulnerability [CWE-415] in FortiOS, FortiProxy and FortiSwitch may allow a local authenticated attacker to crash the newcli daemon via crafted CLI commands.

An Improper Locking vulnerability [CWE-667] in FortiOS may allow an unauthenticated attacker with network access to the device to cause a denial of service of the HTTPS management interface via crafted HTTP requests.

An Uncaught Exception vulnerability [CWE-248] in FortiSandbox may allow a privileged attacker to deny access to the GUI and CLI persistently via crafted HTTP requests.

An Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability [CWE-89] in FortiAnalyzer, FortiManager, FortiManager Cloud and FortiAnalyzer Cloud may allow a low privileged user to execute arbitrary commands via crafted requests.

An Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel vulnerability [CWE-288] in FortiSandbox GUI may allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to bypass authentication via crafted HTTP requests.

FortiMail has a 9.8 unauthenticated path traversal that allows arbitrary file writes and potentially code execution. Fortinet says it’s already being exploited.

Some patched versions: upcoming.

Security appliances continue their long tradition of occasionally becoming the thing you need security from.

An improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('path traversal') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiMail 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiMail 7.6.0 through 7.6.6, FortiMail 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiMail 7.2.0 through 7.2.9 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to write arbitrary files on the underlying system via crafted HTTP or HTTPS requests.