CVE-2020-15941
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 · uneditedA path traversal vulnerability [CWE-22] in FortiClientEMS versions 6.4.1 and below; 6.2.8 and below may allow an authenticated attacker to inject directory traversal character sequences to add/delete the files of the server via the name parameter of Deployment Packages.
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 · high confidenceA path traversal vulnerability (CWE-22) in FortiClientEMS versions 6.4.1 and below; 6.2.8 and below allows authenticated attackers to inject directory traversal character sequences (e.g., ../) through the name parameter in Deployment Packages, potentially allowing unauthorized file creation or deletion on the server filesystem outside the intended directory.
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< 6.2.9>= 6.4.0, < 6.4.2CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
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.
-
Identify FortiClientEMS versionLog into the EMS management console and navigate to the About or System Information page to view the installed software version. Alternatively, check the installer file or the software release notes documentation.Affected if The version displayed is 6.4.1 or lower, or 6.2.8 or lower (versions below 6.2.9 or below 6.4.2).
-
Confirm Deployment Packages feature is in useNavigate to the Deployment Packages section in the EMS console to see if any packages have been created or configured on the server.Affected if Deployment Packages are created or managed on the EMS server, as the vulnerability is exploited through the name parameter in this feature.
-
Inspect existing deployment package names for traversal sequencesReview all deployment package names listed in the EMS console for suspicious patterns such as '../', '..\', or other directory traversal character sequences.Affected if Any deployment package name contains '../' or '..\' patterns, indicating potential exploitation.
-
Review EMS server filesystem for unauthorized filesExamine the EMS server's filesystem, particularly directories outside the expected deployment package storage folder, for unexpected or newly created files that may have been written via traversal sequences.Affected if Files exist in directories outside the intended deployment package directory, suggesting the vulnerability may have been exploited.
A user is affected if the installed FortiClientEMS version is 6.4.1 or below, or 6.2.8 or below, and the Deployment Packages feature is accessible or has been used.
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 · scoped6.2.96.4.2
Upgrade FortiClientEMS to version 6.4.2 or 6.2.9 or later. In the interim, restrict access to the EMS management console to trusted users only and monitor for deployment package names containing traversal sequences such as '../' or '..\'.
FortiClient EMS 6.2.9 (for 6.2.x branch) or 6.4.2 (for 6.4.x branch) or later
- 1. Identify the current FortiClient EMS version by accessing the management console and navigating to System Settings > About or using the CLI command 'get system status'
- 2. If running version 6.2.x: Plan upgrade to version 6.2.9 or later
- 3. If running version 6.4.0 or 6.4.1: Plan upgrade to version 6.4.2 or later
- 4. Before upgrading, backup the FortiClient EMS configuration via System Settings > Backup & Restore or CLI command 'execute backup full-config'
- 5. Download the appropriate upgrade image from Fortinet support portal (support.fortinet.com)
- 6. Apply the upgrade via the management console (System Settings > Firmware) or CLI using 'execute restore image <tftp/ftp>'
- 7. After upgrade completes, verify the version and confirm the vulnerability is patched
- 8. Test that Deployment Package creation/modification functionality works correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-15941 — 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-2020-15941 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