CVE-2022-39947
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 special elements used in an os command ('os command injection') in Fortinet FortiADC version 7.0.0 through 7.0.2, FortiADC version 6.2.0 through 6.2.3, FortiADC version version 6.1.0 through 6.1.6, FortiADC version 6.0.0 through 6.0.4, FortiADC version 5.4.0 through 5.4.5 may allow an attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specifically crafted HTTP requests.
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 analysisUser input reaches a shell or system command without being fully separated from the command itself, so an attacker can append their own instructions. Because these run with the application's privileges, it often means full control of the host. The lasting fix is to avoid the shell entirely — call APIs directly and pass arguments as data, never as concatenated strings.
General guidance for the os command injection 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>= 5.4.0, <= 5.4.5>= 6.0.0, <= 6.0.4>= 6.1.0, <= 6.1.6>= 6.2.0, <= 6.2.3= 7.0.0= 7.0.1CVSS 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
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 · scopedFortiADC 5.4.6+ / 6.0.5+ / 6.1.7+ / 6.2.4+ / 7.0.3+ (next available stable release in your branch)
- 1. Identify the currently installed FortiADC version via the web UI (Dashboard > Status) or CLI: get system status
- 2. Access FortiGuard security advisory FG-IR-22-061 at https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-22-061 to obtain the official patch details
- 3. Based on your current major version branch, upgrade to the fixed release: for 5.4.x upgrade to 5.4.6 or later; for 6.0.x upgrade to 6.0.5 or later; for 6.1.x upgrade to 6.1.7 or later; for 6.2.x upgrade to 6.2.4 or later; for 7.0.x upgrade to 7.0.3 or later
- 4. Obtain the upgrade image from Fortinet's support portal (https://support.fortinet.com)
- 5. Upload the firmware via FortiADC web UI (System > Firmware) or CLI: execute firmware upload
- 6. After upgrade, verify the new version: get system status and confirm it is no longer in the affected range
- 7. Test that the HTTP request functionality continues to work correctly
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-2022-39947 — 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-2022-39947 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