CVE-2023-25609
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 server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability [CWE-918] in FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer GUI 7.2.0 through 7.2.1, 7.0.0 through 7.0.6, 6.4.8 through 6.4.11 may allow a remote and authenticated attacker to access unauthorized files and services on the system via specially crafted web 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 analysis · moderate confidenceThis is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer GUI versions 7.2.0-7.2.1, 7.0.0-7.0.6, and 6.4.8-6.4.11. An authenticated remote attacker can exploit specially crafted web requests to make the server perform unauthorized requests to internal resources, potentially accessing sensitive files and services that should be restricted.
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>= 6.4.8, <= 6.4.11>= 7.0.0, <= 7.0.6= 7.2.0= 7.2.1>= 6.4.8, <= 6.4.11>= 7.0.0, <= 7.0.6= 7.2.0= 7.2.1CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 the product typeDetermine whether the system is FortiManager or FortiAnalyzer by checking the system dashboard or running 'get system status' CLI commandAffected if The product is FortiManager or FortiAnalyzer
-
Check the installed versionRun 'get system status' or view the GUI dashboard to obtain the firmware version number and compare it to the affected ranges: 6.4.8-6.4.11, 7.0.0-7.0.6, 7.2.0-7.2.1Affected if The version is 6.4.8 through 6.4.11, 7.0.0 through 7.0.6, or exactly 7.2.0 or 7.2.1
-
Verify GUI interface is enabledConfirm the web-based GUI is enabled by checking 'system interface' settings or attempting to access the GUI login page on port 443 or 80Affected if The GUI interface is enabled and reachable on the network
-
Review logs for suspicious internal requestsSearch FortiAnalyzer/FortiManager logs and traffic logs for entries showing the server making unexpected connections to internal IP addresses, localhost, or internal services that were not initiated by legitimate administrative actionsAffected if Logs show the server making unauthorized requests to internal resources or accessing restricted services
A user is affected if they are running FortiManager or FortiAnalyzer with a version in 6.4.8-6.4.11, 7.0.0-7.0.6, 7.2.0, or 7.2.1 AND the GUI interface is accessible to authenticated 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 Fortinet's patched versions (contact Fortinet for specific version numbers). If immediate patching is not possible, restrict GUI access to trusted networks only and enforce strong authentication for GUI access to reduce the attack surface.
FortiManager/FortiAnalyzer 7.2.2, 7.0.7, or 6.4.12 (depending on your current branch)
- 1. Identify the currently installed FortiManager or FortiAnalyzer version using the web UI or CLI command 'get system status'.
- 2. Based on your current major version branch, plan the upgrade path to the corresponding fixed release.
- 3. For FortiAnalyzer 7.2.x deployments, upgrade to version 7.2.2 or later.
- 4. For FortiAnalyzer 7.0.x deployments, upgrade to version 7.0.7 or later.
- 5. For FortiAnalyzer 6.4.x deployments, upgrade to version 6.4.12 or later.
- 6. For FortiManager 7.2.x deployments, upgrade to version 7.2.2 or later.
- 7. For FortiManager 7.0.x deployments, upgrade to version 7.0.7 or later.
- 8. For FortiManager 6.4.x deployments, upgrade to version 6.4.12 or later.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-25609 — 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-2023-25609 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