CVE-2022-23439
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 externally controlled reference to a resource in another sphere vulnerability in Fortinet allows attacker to poison web caches via crafted HTTP requests, where the `Host` header points to an arbitrary webserver
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 confidenceFortinet products contain an externally controlled reference vulnerability where crafted HTTP requests with a manipulated Host header pointing to an arbitrary webserver can poison web caches. This allows attackers to potentially inject malicious content into cached responses served to other users.
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>= 5.4.0, < 6.2.4>= 6.3.0, < 6.3.4>= 6.4.0, < 6.4.2>= 5.3.0, < 5.5.2>= 6.1.0, < 6.3.4>= 6.4.0, < 7.0.4>= 1.4.0, < 7.1.1= 7.2.0>= 2.0.0, < 7.0.5>= 7.2.0, < 7.4.0>= 6.0.0, < 6.0.11>= 6.4.0, < 6.4.3CVSS 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
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 the Fortinet productAccess the device CLI or web interface and run the command 'get system status' or check the dashboard to identify the product name (e.g., Fortiadc, Fortiauthenticator, Fortiddos, Fortimail, Fortiproxy, Fortirecorder)Affected if The product is any of these Fortinet products: Fortiadc, Fortiauthenticator, Fortiddos, Fortiddos F, Fortimail, Fortindr, Fortiproxy, or Fortirecorder
-
Determine the installed firmware versionRun 'get system status' in CLI or check System > Firmware in the web interface to find the exact version numberAffected if The version falls within any of these ranges: Fortiadc < 6.2.4 (>= 5.4.0), Fortiauthenticator < 6.3.4 (>= 6.3.0) or < 6.4.2 (>= 6.4.0), Fortiddos < 5.5.2 (>= 5.3.0), Fortiddos F < 6.3.4 (>= 6.1.0), Fortimail < 7.0.4 (>= 6.4.0), Fortindr < 7.1.1 (>= 1.4.0) or = 7.2.0, Fortiproxy < 7.0.5 (>= 2.0.0) or
-
Check if web caching or proxy service is enabledFor Fortiproxy: go to Security Profiles > Web Cache or run 'show webcache' in CLI. For Fortiadc: check Load Balance > Web Cache settings. For Fortimail: check Mail Settings > Web Cache. For other products, inspect the proxy or caching configuration.Affected if Web caching or HTTP proxy functionality is enabled and serving cached content to users
-
Verify Host header handling in the configurationInspect the proxy or web service configuration for Host header validation settings. Run 'show' commands related to proxy, webcache, or HTTP forwarding. Check whether Host header values are used as cache keys without validation.Affected if The device uses the Host header as part of the cache key without strict validation, or forwards requests with arbitrary Host headers to backend servers
A user is affected if they are running any of the listed Fortinet products within the specified version ranges AND have web caching or HTTP proxy features enabled that use Host headers in cache keying.
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 · scoped5.5.26.0.116.2.4
Implement strict validation of Host headers in web applications and consider implementing cache keying that includes additional parameters to prevent cache poisoning. Apply any available Fortinet patches for affected products.
Fortiadc: 6.2.4+ | Fortiauthenticator: 6.3.4+ or 6.4.2+ | Fortiddos: 5.5.2+ | Fortiddos F: 6.3.4+ | Fortimail: 7.0.4+ | Fortindr: 7.1.1+ (avoid 7.2.0) | Fortiproxy: 7.0.5+ or 7.4.0+ | Fortirecorder: 6.0.11+ or 6.4.3+
- 1. Identify the affected Fortinet product from your deployment (Fortiadc, Fortiauthenticator, Fortiddos, Fortiddos F, Fortimail, Fortindr, Fortiproxy, or Fortirecorder)
- 2. Determine the currently installed version using the product's CLI (typically `get system status` or ` diagnose system full-status`) or web UI
- 3. Consult Fortinet's FortiGuard advisories or release notes for the specific fixed release corresponding to your product line
- 4. Download the fixed firmware version from Fortinet's support portal (support.fortinet.com) after authenticating with valid entitlements
- 5. Back up the current configuration following the product's backup procedures
- 6. Upload and install the fixed firmware via the web UI (System > Firmware or similar) or CLI (`execute firmware upgrade`)
- 7. After upgrade, verify the version matches the fixed release and confirm normal operation
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-23439 — 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-2022-23439 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