FortinacApplication · Fortinet
CVE-2023-26206
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 ('cross-site scripting') in Fortinet FortiNAC 9.4.0 - 9.4.2, 9.2.0 - 9.2.8, 9.1.0 - 9.1.10 and 7.2.0 allows an attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via the name fields observed in the policy audit logs.
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 confidenceFortiNAC versions 9.4.0-9.4.2, 9.2.0-9.2.8, 9.1.0-9.1.10, and 7.2.0 contain a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in policy audit logs where name fields are not properly sanitized before display, allowing authenticated attackers to inject malicious JavaScript via these fields.
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
FortinacApplication
>= 9.1.0, <= 9.1.10>= 9.2.0, <= 9.2.8>= 9.4.0, <= 9.4.2= 7.2.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Identify FortiNAC installation and versionAccess the FortiNAC CLI or web UI and retrieve the installed software version. In CLI, this is typically shown via 'get system status' or similar commands. In the web UI, check the dashboard or about page.Affected if The installed version falls within 9.4.0-9.4.2, 9.2.0-9.2.8, 9.1.0-9.1.10, or 7.2.0.
-
Verify policy audit log accessNavigate to the policy audit log section in the FortiNAC web interface (typically under Logs or Policy configuration). Confirm the feature is accessible to authenticated users.Affected if Policy audit logs are accessible without additional security restrictions.
-
Inspect policy audit logs for injected contentReview the policy audit log entries, specifically examining any 'name' fields displayed in the logs. Look for unexpected characters, HTML tags, or JavaScript code that may indicate injection attempts.Affected if The name fields in audit log entries contain unescaped HTML, script tags, or JavaScript event handlers (such as onerror, onload, onclick).
-
Check web application logs for XSS patternsReview FortiNAC web server logs (httpd or similar) for requests targeting policy audit log endpoints that contain script-related keywords in name parameters.Affected if Logs contain requests with suspicious patterns like <script>, javascript:, or event handlers in parameters associated with policy audit log name fields.
You are affected if FortiNAC is running any of the vulnerable versions (9.4.0-9.4.2, 9.2.0-9.2.8, 9.1.0-9.1.10, or 7.2.0) and the policy audit logs contain unsanitized JavaScript in name fields.
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 · scopedApply vendor-released patches for FortiNAC (9.4.3, 9.2.9, 9.1.11, and 7.2.1 or later) to address the XSS vulnerability in policy audit log name fields; as a compensating control, implement output encoding when rendering user-supplied name fields in web pages.
FortiNAC 9.4.3+ (or 9.2.9+ or 9.1.11+ or 7.2.1+ depending on your branch)
- 1. Identify the currently installed FortiNAC version using the Web UI or CLI: in the Web UI go to System > Settings, or run 'get system status' in the CLI
- 2. If running version 9.4.0 through 9.4.2, upgrade to version 9.4.3 or later
- 3. If running version 9.2.0 through 9.2.8, upgrade to version 9.2.9 or later
- 4. If running version 9.1.0 through 9.1.10, upgrade to version 9.1.11 or later
- 5. If running version 7.2.0, upgrade to version 7.2.1 or later
- 6. After upgrade, verify the fix by checking that name fields in policy audit logs are properly sanitized and no longer accept unsanitized HTML/JavaScript input
- 7. Review FortiNAC release notes for the target version to confirm the CVE fix is included
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Fortinac
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-2023-26206 — 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-2023-26206 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