Where
AND
-Infinity
0
Severity
6.1
XSS
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N/E:F/RL:X/RC:X

An Improper Neutralization of Input vulnerability affecting FortiGate version 6.2.0 through 6.2.1, 6.0.0 through 6.0.6 in the hostname parameter of a DHCP packet under DHCP monitor page may allow an unauthenticated attacker in the same network as the FortiGate to perform a Stored Cross Site Scripting attack (XSS) by sending a crafted DHCP packet.

Remedy

Please upgrade to FortiOS version 6.2.2 and above. Please upgrade to FortiOS version 6.0.7 and above.
First published (updated )
Severity
5.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI manifests are listings of relevant files that clients are supposed to verify. Assuming everything else is correct, the most recent version of a manifest should be prioritized over other versions, to prevent replays, accidental or otherwise. Manifests contain the manifestNumber and thisUpdate fields, which can be used to gauge the relevance of a given manifest, when compared to other manifests. The former is a serial-like sequential number, and the latter is the date on which the manifest was created. However, the product does not compare the up-to-dateness of the most recently fetched manifest against the cached manifest. As such, it's prone to a rollback to a previous version if it's served a valid outdated manifest. This leads to outdated route origin validation.

First published (updated )
Severity
5.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.

First published (updated )
Severity
5.3
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N/E:U/RL:X/RC:X

A clear text storage of sensitive information (CWE-312) vulnerability in both FortiGate and FortiAuthenticator may allow a local unauthorized party to retrieve the Fortinet private keys used to establish secure communication with both Apple Push Notification and Google Cloud Messaging services, via accessing the files on the filesystem.

The potentially exposed private keys have been revoked, please upgrade to the versions provided in the solutions to support push proxy.

First published (updated )
Advisory
FG-IR-20-014
Severity
4
AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L/E:P/RL:X/RC:C

A debug functionality in FortiGate may allow a privileged user to execute unauthorized code or commands via specificchains of print str and cmd mem cli commands to, respectively, read and write hexadecimal values to any memory address.

First published (updated )
Advisory
FG-IR-21-091
Severity
5.3
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N/E:U/RL:X/RC:X
First published (updated )
Advisory
FG-IR-20-033
Severity
5.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

An insufficient logging vulnerability in FortiGate before 6.4.1 may allow the traffic from an unauthenticated attacker to Fortinet owned IP addresses to go unnoticed.

First published (updated )

Contact

SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
132 Wickham Terrace
Fortitude Valley,
QLD 4006, Australia
info@secalerts.co
By using SecAlerts services, you agree to our services end-user license agreement. This website is safeguarded by reCAPTCHA and governed by the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. All names, logos, and brands of products are owned by their respective owners, and any usage of these names, logos, and brands for identification purposes only does not imply endorsement. If you possess any content that requires removal, please get in touch with us.
© 2026 SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
ABN: 70 645 966 203, ACN: 645 966 203