CVE-2021-27859
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 missing authorization vulnerability in the web management interface of FatPipe WARP, IPVPN, and MPVPN software prior to versions 10.1.2r60p91 and 10.2.2r42 allows an authenticated, remote attacker with read-only privileges to create an account with administrative privileges. Older versions of FatPipe software may also be vulnerable. This does not appear to be a CSRF vulnerability. The FatPipe advisory identifier for this vulnerability is FPSA005.
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 missing authorization vulnerability in FatPipe WARP, IPVPN, and MPVPN web management interface allows authenticated users with read-only privileges to create accounts with administrative privileges, enabling privilege escalation. This is an IDOR-type authorization bypass, not a CSRF issue.
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= 5.2.0= 6.1.2= 7.1.2= 9.1.2= 10.1.2= 10.2.2= 5.2.0= 6.1.2= 7.1.2= 9.1.2= 10.1.2= 10.2.2= 5.2.0= 6.1.2= 7.1.2= 9.1.2= 10.1.2= 10.2.2CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Identify FatPipe device firmware versionAccess the web management interface and navigate to the System Status or About page to view the firmware version, or use the CLI command 'version' or 'show system info' if availableAffected if The installed firmware version matches one of the affected versions: 5.2.0, 6.1.2, 7.1.2, 9.1.2, 10.1.2, or 10.2.2
-
Confirm web management interface is enabledCheck if the FatPipe web management interface (typically on ports 80 or 443) is accessible and operationalAffected if The web interface is exposed and running on the affected firmware versions
-
Review all user accounts for privilege escalationLog into the web management interface with administrative credentials and navigate to the User Management or Accounts section. List all user accounts and note their assigned privilege levelsAffected if There are administrative accounts that were not created by the primary administrator, or there are more admin accounts than expected
-
Check for unexpected read-only usersIn the User Management section, identify any accounts with read-only privileges that should not exist or were not created by authorized administratorsAffected if There are read-only users present who did not originate from legitimate administrative provisioning
-
Audit account creation timestampsIf available, review account creation dates and times in the user management logs or audit logs to identify accounts created outside of normal administrative activitiesAffected if Admin accounts were created at times or by methods inconsistent with documented procedures
Your environment is affected if the FatPipe device runs any of the listed firmware versions (5.2.0, 6.1.2, 7.1.2, 9.1.2, 10.1.2, or 10.2.2) and unauthorized administrative accounts exist in the 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 · scopedUpgrade FatPipe software to versions 10.1.2r60p91, 10.2.2r42 or later to implement proper authorization checks for account creation.
10.1.2r60p91 (WARP) or 10.2.2r42 (IPVPN/MPVPN)
- 1. Identify the specific FatPipe product in use (WARP, IPVPN, or MPVPN)
- 2. Determine the current firmware version via the web management interface or CLI
- 3. For IPVPN and MPVPN products: upgrade to firmware version 10.2.2r42
- 4. For WARP products: upgrade to firmware version 10.1.2r60p91
- 5. Download the firmware update from the official FatPipe support portal (www.fatpipeinc.com)
- 6. Upload and apply the firmware through the web management interface or CLI
- 7. After upgrade, verify the new firmware version is installed
- 8. Confirm that read-only users can no longer create administrative accounts
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-27859 — 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-2021-27859 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