CVE-2022-39950
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 neutralization of input during web page generation vulnerability [CWE-79] exists in FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer 6.0.0 all versions, 6.2.0 all versions, 6.4.0 through 6.4.8, and 7.0.0 through 7.0.4. Report templates may allow a low privilege level attacker to perform an XSS attack via posting a crafted CKeditor "protected" comment as described in CVE-2020-9281.
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 stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability (CWE-79) in FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer web interfaces. A low-privilege attacker can inject malicious JavaScript code via crafted CKeditor 'protected' comments embedded in report templates. The vulnerability is a regression or related issue to CVE-2020-9281 which had similar CKeditor protected comment injection.
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>= 6.0.0, <= 6.2.9>= 6.4.0, <= 6.4.8>= 7.0.0, <= 7.0.4>= 6.0.0, <= 6.2.9>= 6.4.0, <= 6.4.8>= 7.0.0, <= 7.0.4CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Determine FortiAnalyzer versionLog into the FortiAnalyzer web interface and check the version displayed on the login page footer, or use the CLI command 'get system status' to retrieve the firmware version.Affected if The installed version falls within 6.0.0 to 6.2.9, 6.4.0 to 6.4.8, or 7.0.0 to 7.0.4.
-
Determine FortiManager versionLog into the FortiManager web interface and check the version displayed on the login page footer, or use the CLI command 'get system status' to retrieve the firmware version.Affected if The installed version falls within 6.0.0 to 6.2.9, 6.4.0 to 6.4.8, or 7.0.0 to 7.0.4.
-
Verify access to report template functionalityNavigate to the Reports section in the web UI and confirm whether report templates can be created, edited, or modified. Check user account permissions to determine if low-privilege users have access to this feature.Affected if The report template creation or modification feature is accessible to the user being assessed, particularly low-privilege accounts.
-
Inspect CKeditor usage in report templatesIn the Reports section, open any existing report templates and examine if the CKeditor rich text editor is used for template editing. Look for the presence of the CKeditor interface when modifying templates.Affected if CKeditor is enabled and used for editing report templates in the web interface.
A user is affected if their FortiManager or FortiAnalyzer version is within the listed vulnerable ranges AND the report template feature with CKeditor is accessible to low-privilege users.
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 to FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer versions 7.0.5 or later, or 7.2.0 or later where the vulnerability is patched. As a temporary measure, disable or restrict report template creation/modification for low-privilege users.
Upgrade to FortiManager/FortiAnalyzer 7.0.5 or later (or 6.4.9+ for 6.4.x branch)
- 1. Identify the current FortiManager or FortiAnalyzer version using the Web UI (System Settings > Dashboard > System Information) or CLI: get system status
- 2. Based on the current major version, plan upgrade path: For 6.0.x-6.2.x: upgrade to 6.4.9 or later; For 6.4.x: upgrade to 6.4.9 or later (or 7.0.5+); For 7.0.x: upgrade to 7.0.5 or later
- 3. Backup the FortiManager/FortiAnalyzer configuration before upgrading
- 4. Download the appropriate firmware from Fortinet Customer Support portal (https://support.fortinet.com)
- 5. Upload and install the firmware via Web UI (System Settings > Firmware) or CLI: execute restore config <filename>
- 6. After upgrade, verify the system is operational and test report templates to confirm the vulnerability is remediated
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-39950 — 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-2022-39950 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