CVE-2019-6695
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 · uneditedLack of root file system integrity checking in Fortinet FortiManager VM application images of 6.2.0, 6.0.6 and below may allow an attacker to implant third-party programs by recreating the image through specific methods.
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 confidenceFortiManager VM images of versions 6.2.0, 6.0.6 and below lack cryptographic integrity verification of the root file system. An attacker who can modify or recreate the VM image (e.g., through man-in-the-middle during download, compromised download source, or image tampering) can inject malicious third-party programs that will execute when the virtual machine boots, achieving arbitrary code execution with elevated privileges.
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<= 6.0.6= 6.2.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Confirm FortiManager VM deploymentIdentify whether the Fortinet FortiManager instance is running as a virtual machine (VM) rather than a physical hardware appliance. Check virtualization platform inventory or use FortiManager CLI command 'get system status' to verify the platform type.Affected if The instance is running as a VM image (not hardware appliance)
-
Determine FortiManager versionRun the FortiManager CLI command 'get system status' or 'get system version' to retrieve the installed firmware version. Alternatively, check the VM image file name or metadata if the image has not been deployed yet.Affected if The version displayed is 6.2.0 or 6.0.6 or below (versions <= 6.0.6 or exactly 6.2.0)
-
Verify root file system integrity mechanismExamine whether the VM image or its root file system includes cryptographic signatures or integrity verification mechanisms. This may require checking the image for embedded signing artifacts, or reviewing FortiManager documentation/build notes for the specific image version.Affected if No cryptographic integrity verification is implemented for the root file system in the deployed VM image version
A FortiManager VM instance running version 6.2.0 or version 6.0.6 or below is affected if it lacks cryptographic integrity verification of its root file system.
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.
dbcve · scopedFortinet should implement cryptographic signing and verification of the root file system in VM images. Users should obtain VM images only from official Fortinet sources and verify any provided checksums, though the primary fix requires vendor action to add integrity verification mechanisms to the image build process.
FortiManager 6.0.7+ or 6.2.1+ (preferably latest stable 6.x or 7.x release)
- 1. Identify the current FortiManager VM version using 'get system status' or via the web UI under Dashboard > Status
- 2. If running version 6.0.6 or below, plan upgrade to FortiManager 6.0.7 or later
- 3. If running version 6.2.0, plan upgrade to FortiManager 6.2.1 or later
- 4. Obtain the updated VM image from Fortinet's official download portal (https://support.fortinet.com/)
- 5. Before deploying the new image, verify the image integrity using checksums provided by Fortinet
- 6. Deploy the upgraded FortiManager VM image following standard deployment procedures
- 7. After upgrade, verify the system is functioning correctly and review logs for any anomalies
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation40.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $20,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-6695 — 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-2019-6695 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