CVE-2023-29180
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 null pointer dereference in Fortinet FortiOS version 7.2.0 through 7.2.4, 7.0.0 through 7.0.11, 6.4.0 through 6.4.12, 6.2.0 through 6.2.14, 6.0.0 through 6.0.16, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.2.3, 7.0.0 through 7.0.10, 2.0.0 through 2.0.12, 1.2.0 through 1.2.13, 1.1.0 through 1.1.6, 1.0.0 through 1.0.7 allows attacker to denial of service via specially 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 analysis · high confidenceA null pointer dereference vulnerability exists in FortiOS and FortiProxy's HTTP request handling. The flaw is triggered by specially crafted HTTP requests sent to the affected systems, causing the process to dereference a null pointer and crash, resulting in denial of service.
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>= 1.0.0, <= 1.0.7>= 1.1.0, <= 1.1.6>= 1.2.0, <= 1.2.13>= 2.0.0, < 2.0.13>= 7.0.0, < 7.0.11>= 7.2.0, < 7.2.4>= 6.0.0, < 6.0.17>= 6.2.0, < 6.2.15>= 6.4.0, < 6.4.13>= 7.0.0, < 7.0.12>= 7.2.0, < 7.2.5CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 product typeRun 'get system status' on the CLI or check the web UI dashboard to confirm whether the device runs FortiOS or FortiProxyAffected if The device is not FortiOS or FortiProxy (not affected)
-
Retrieve the firmware versionRun 'get system status' on the CLI or view the firmware version in the web UI under Dashboard > System InformationAffected if The version cannot be determined or is not FortiOS/FortiProxy
-
Compare FortiOS version against affected rangesIf running FortiOS, check if version falls within: 6.0.0-6.0.16, 6.2.0-6.2.14, 6.4.0-6.4.12, 7.0.0-7.0.11, or 7.2.0-7.2.4Affected if The installed FortiOS version matches any of these ranges
-
Compare FortiProxy version against affected rangesIf running FortiProxy, check if version falls within: 1.0.0-1.0.7, 1.1.0-1.1.6, 1.2.0-1.2.13, 2.0.0-2.0.12, 7.0.0-7.0.10, or 7.2.0-7.2.3Affected if The installed FortiProxy version matches any of these ranges
-
Verify HTTP management interface exposureConfirm whether the FortiOS/FortiProxy web UI (HTTP/HTTPS on port 443 or 80) is accessible from untrusted networks by reviewing interface bindings in 'config system interface' and policies allowing HTTP/HTTPS trafficAffected if The HTTP management interface is exposed to untrusted networks and the version is vulnerable
You are affected if the device runs a vulnerable FortiOS or FortiProxy version within the affected ranges AND its HTTP interface is reachable from attack vectors.
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 · scoped2.0.136.0.176.2.15
Apply the vendor-supplied patches: FortiOS 7.2.5+, 7.0.12+, 6.4.13+, 6.2.15+, 6.0.17+ and FortiProxy 7.2.4+, 7.0.11+, 2.0.13+, 1.2.14+, 1.1.7+, 1.0.8+. As interim mitigation, restrict HTTP access to trusted sources or place behind a WAF.
FortiOS: 6.0.17+, 6.2.15+, 6.4.13+, 7.0.12+, or 7.2.5+ | FortiProxy: 1.0.8+, 1.1.7+, 1.2.14+, 2.0.13+, or 7.2.4+
- Identify the current FortiOS or FortiProxy version running in your environment using the web UI or CLI command 'get system status'
- For FortiOS: Determine if your version is in an affected range (6.0.0-6.0.16, 6.2.0-6.2.14, 6.4.0-6.4.12, or 7.0.0-7.0.11)
- For FortiProxy: Determine if your version is in an affected range (1.0.0-1.0.7, 1.1.0-1.1.6, 1.2.0-1.2.13, or 2.0.0-2.0.12)
- Download the appropriate fixed firmware version from Fortinet's support portal at https://support.fortinet.com/
- Back up the current configuration before upgrading
- Upload and install the new firmware via the FortiOS/FortiProxy web UI (System > Firmware) or CLI
- After upgrade, verify the version matches the fixed release and confirm the system is functioning normally
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-29180 — 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-2023-29180 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