CVE-2022-45862
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 insufficient session expiration vulnerability [CWE-613] vulnerability in FortiOS 7.2.5 and below, 7.0 all versions, 6.4 all versions; FortiProxy 7.2 all versions, 7.0 all versions; FortiPAM 1.3 all versions, 1.2 all versions, 1.1 all versions, 1.0 all versions; FortiSwitchManager 7.2.1 and below, 7.0 all versions GUI may allow attackers to re-use websessions after GUI logout, should they manage to acquire the required credentials.
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 confidenceThis is an insufficient session expiration vulnerability (CWE-613) in Fortinet's GUI components across multiple products. When a user logs out of the FortiOS, FortiProxy, FortiPAM, or FortiSwitchManager GUI, the server-side session is not properly invalidated, allowing previously authenticated session tokens to remain valid. An attacker who obtains valid session credentials (through theft, interception, or other means) can continue using the websession even after the legitimate user has logged out.
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>= 7.0.0, < 7.4.0>= 7.0.0, < 7.2.2>= 6.4.0, < 7.2.6>= 1.0.0, < 1.4.0CVSS 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
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 product and versionLog into the device CLI and run the command: `get system status` or ` FortiProxy -get system status` (depending on product). This displays the product name and firmware version.Affected if The product is FortiOS, FortiProxy, FortiPAM, or FortiSwitchManager and the version falls within the affected ranges: FortiOS < 7.2.6 (or 6.4.0 to < 7.2.6), FortiProxy < 7.4.0 (or 7.0.0 to < 7.4.0), FortiPAM < 1.4.0 (or 1.0.0 to < 1.4.0), FortiSwitchManager < 7.2.2 (or 7.0.0 to < 7.2.2).
-
Confirm GUI access is enabledRun the command: `get system interface` or `show system interface` to list network interfaces, then check if the management GUI (HTTP/HTTPS) is configured on any interface. For FortiOS use: `get system global | grep -i admin` or `show system global` to verify admin https-mode is enabled.Affected if The GUI administration interface (HTTPS) is accessible, as the vulnerability affects session tokens used in GUI web sessions.
-
Verify active web sessions can persist after logoutThis is a logic vulnerability in the server-side session handling - no direct command confirms the flaw. The check is satisfied if steps 1 and 2 confirm an affected version with GUI enabled.Affected if The installed version is within the affected ranges listed in step 1 AND GUI access is enabled, meaning the insufficient session expiration flaw is present.
You are affected if your Fortinet product is FortiOS, FortiProxy, FortiPAM, or FortiSwitchManager with a version >= 6.4.0 for FortiOS, >= 7.0.0 for FortiProxy/FortiSwitchManager, or >= 1.0.0 for FortiPAM, and below the respective fixed versions (7.2.6, 7.4.0, 7.2.2, 1.4.0), with the GUI interface enabled.
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 · scoped1.4.07.2.27.2.6
Upgrade to Fortinet vendor-supplied patched versions that properly invalidate sessions on GUI logout. For FortiOS, this is 7.2.6 and above; for FortiProxy 7.2.x, 7.0.x upgrade path per vendor; for FortiPAM and FortiSwitchManager, obtain patched versions from Fortinet.
FortiOS 7.2.6+ | FortiProxy 7.4.0+ | FortiSwitchManager 7.2.2+ | FortiPAM 1.4.0+
- 1. Identify the affected Fortinet product (FortiOS, FortiProxy, FortiPAM, or FortiSwitchManager) in your environment
- 2. Determine the current installed version via the product's GUI or CLI
- 3. For FortiOS: upgrade to version 7.2.6 or later
- 4. For FortiProxy: upgrade to version 7.4.0 or later
- 5. For FortiSwitchManager: upgrade to version 7.2.2 or later
- 6. For FortiPAM: upgrade to version 1.4.0 or later
- 7. After upgrade, verify the GUI session timeout settings are configured appropriately under System > Settings > Timeout Settings
- 8. Test that sessions are properly terminated after logout
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $3,392.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-45862 — 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-2022-45862 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