CVE-2019-5592
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedMultiple padding oracle vulnerabilities (Zombie POODLE, GOLDENDOODLE, OpenSSL 0-length) in the CBC padding implementation of FortiOS IPS engine version 5.000 to 5.006, 4.000 to 4.036, 4.200 to 4.219, 3.547 and below, when configured with SSL Deep Inspection policies and with the IPS sensor enabled, may allow an attacker to decipher TLS connections going through the FortiGate via monitoring the traffic in a Man-in-the-middle position.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceMultiple padding oracle vulnerabilities (Zombie POODLE, GOLDENDOODLE, OpenSSL 0-length) in FortiOS IPS engine CBC padding implementation allow a MITM attacker to decipher TLS traffic when SSL Deep Inspection and IPS sensor are both enabled. These are POODLE-style attacks exploiting CBC mode padding validation in the deep inspection proxy.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 3.00547>= 4.00000, <= 4.00036>= 4.00200, <= 4.00219>= 5.00000, <= 5.00006CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check FortiOS versionRun 'get system status' or 'diagnose sys status' in FortiOS CLI to retrieve the firmware versionAffected if Version matches any of these ranges: <= 3.00547, >= 4.00000 <= 4.00036, >= 4.00200 <= 4.00219, or >= 5.00000 <= 5.00006
-
Verify SSL Deep Inspection is enabledRun 'get firewall ssl-ssh-profile' or check the SSL/SSH inspection profile configuration in FortiOS CLI or GUIAffected if SSL Deep Inspection profile is active and assigned to a policy
-
Confirm IPS sensor is enabledRun 'get ips sensor' or check IPS sensor status in FortiOS CLI or GUI under Security ProfilesAffected if IPS sensor is enabled and applied to a policy that handles TLS traffic
-
Check if policies use both SSL Deep Inspection and IPSReview firewall policies under Policy & Objects to identify policies that have both SSL/SSH Inspection and IPS sensor enabled simultaneouslyAffected if Any policy has both SSL Deep Inspection and IPS sensor turned on at the same time
System is affected if FortiOS version is within the vulnerable ranges AND both SSL Deep Inspection and IPS sensor are concurrently enabled in any firewall policy.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade FortiOS to a patched version. If immediate patching is not feasible, disable SSL Deep Inspection or the IPS sensor as a temporary workaround until the firmware can be updated.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-5592 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2019-5592 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data