CVE-2021-43062
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 improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') in Fortinet FortiMail version 7.0.1 and 7.0.0, version 6.4.5 and below, version 6.3.7 and below, version 6.0.11 and below allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via crafted HTTP GET requests to the FortiGuard URI protection service.
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 analysisUntrusted input is placed into a web page without being neutralised, so an attacker's markup or script executes in another user's browser. That can hijack sessions, capture keystrokes, or silently perform actions as the victim. Fixing it properly means context-aware output encoding everywhere data meets HTML, backed by a content-security policy as a second line of defence.
General guidance for the cross-site scripting (xss) class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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>= 6.2.0, < 6.2.8>= 6.4.0, < 6.4.6>= 7.0.0, < 7.0.2CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 · scoped6.2.86.4.67.0.2
Upgrade to FortiMail 6.2.8 (for 6.2.x), 6.4.6 (for 6.4.x), or 7.0.2 (for 7.0.x) depending on your current major branch
- 1. Identify current FortiMail version via Web UI (System > Status) or CLI: 'get system status'
- 2. Determine the appropriate upgrade path based on current major version: 6.2.x -> 6.2.8, 6.4.x -> 6.4.6, 7.0.x -> 7.0.2
- 3. Obtain the firmware image from Fortinet support portal or Fortiguard (https://www.fortiguard.com/firmware)
- 4. Back up FortiMail configuration via Web UI (System > Maintenance > Backup & Restore) or CLI: 'execute backup config tftp <config-name> <tftp-server>'
- 5. Upload the firmware image via Web UI (System > Maintenance > Firmware) or CLI: 'execute upload firmware tftp <firmware-file> <tftp-server>'
- 6. Reboot the FortiMail device to apply the upgrade
- 7. After reboot, verify new version via 'get system status' and confirm the vulnerability is addressed
- 8. Test critical email flows to ensure normal operation
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-43062 — 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-2021-43062 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