FortisandboxApplication · Fortinet
CVE-2022-26115
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 use of password hash with insufficient computational effort vulnerability [CWE-916] in FortiSandbox before 4.2.0 may allow an attacker with access to the password database to efficiently mount bulk guessing attacks to recover the passwords.
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 confidenceFortiSandbox before version 4.2.0 stores password hashes using an insufficient computational effort algorithm (CWE-916), allowing attackers with access to the password database to efficiently recover plaintext passwords through bulk guessing attacks.
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
FortisandboxApplication
= 3.2.0= 3.2.1= 3.2.2= 3.2.3= 4.0.0= 4.0.1= 4.0.2CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 FortiSandbox versionRun command: 'fortisandbox -v' or check System > Firmware version in the web GUI under the Dashboard sectionAffected if The installed version matches 3.2.0, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 4.0.0, 4.0.1, or 4.0.2
-
Locate password databaseAccess the FortiSandbox CLI or administrative interface and navigate to system configuration files containing user account data, typically found under /etc or via the GUI user management sectionAffected if The password database file (containing user password hashes) is present and accessible to local attackers
-
Inspect password hash formatExamine the stored password hashes in the user database - if using weak hashing algorithms like MD5 or simple SHA without salting, they will appear as short alphanumeric stringsAffected if Password hashes appear as short unsalted hashes (less than 40 characters) rather than longer salted hashes typical of bcrypt or Argon2
You are affected if FortiSandbox version is 3.2.0 through 4.0.2 AND password database hashes use a weak, fast hashing algorithm without adequate computational effort.
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 FortiSandbox to version 4.2.0 or later which implements proper password hashing with adequate computational effort, and rotate affected credentials as a precaution.
FortiSandbox 4.2.0 or later
- Upgrade FortiSandbox to version 4.2.0 or later to resolve the insufficient computational effort vulnerability in password hashing
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Fortisandbox
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-26115 — 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-2022-26115 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