ForticlientApplication · Fortinet
CVE-2021-42754
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 · uneditedAn improper control of generation of code vulnerability [CWE-94] in FortiClientMacOS versions 7.0.0 and below and 6.4.5 and below may allow an authenticated attacker to hijack the MacOS camera without the user permission via the malicious dylib file.
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 confidenceThis is a code injection vulnerability (CWE-94) in FortiClientMacOS versions 7.0.0 and below and 6.4.5 and below. An authenticated attacker can exploit improper dylib (dynamic library) loading to inject malicious code that hijacks the MacOS camera without triggering user permission prompts.
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
ForticlientApplication
>= 6.4.0, <= 6.4.5= 7.0.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Confirm FortiClientMacOS is installedCheck /Applications folder for FortiClient.app or run: ls /Applications | grep -i forticlientAffected if FortiClientMacOS application exists on the system
-
Identify installed FortiClient versionRun: defaults read /Applications/FortiClient.app/Contents/Info CFBundleShortVersionString OR right-click FortiClient.app > Get Info to view VersionAffected if Version displayed is 6.4.0 through 6.4.5 inclusive, or exactly 7.0.0
-
Compare version against affected rangesMatch your identified version number against the affected ranges: 6.4.0 <= version <= 6.4.5 OR version == 7.0.0Affected if Installed version falls within 6.4.0-6.4.5 or equals 7.0.0 exactly
-
Check if camera access is granted to FortiClientGo to System Preferences > Security & Privacy > Privacy > Camera, or run: tccutil list | grep -i forticlient to see if FortiClient has camera permissionAffected if FortiClient is listed with camera access permission granted
You are affected if FortiClientMacOS version 6.4.0-6.4.5 or 7.0.0 is installed AND the application has been granted camera permissions on 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.
From vendor dataUpgrade FortiClientMacOS to versions above 7.0.0 and 6.4.5 (refer to Fortinet advisory for exact fixed versions). Additionally, restrict application permissions and ensure only signed/verified dynamic libraries can be loaded.
Fix this in Forticlient
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-42754 — 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-2021-42754 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