FortinacApplication · Fortinet
CVE-2023-33299
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 deserialization of untrusted data in Fortinet FortiNAC below 7.2.1, below 9.4.3, below 9.2.8 and all earlier versions of 8.x allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specifically crafted request on inter-server communication port. Note FortiNAC versions 8.x will not be fixed.
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 contains a deserialization vulnerability in its inter-server communication mechanism that allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code or commands via specially crafted requests to this port. This is a critical pre-authentication flaw affecting multiple version branches.
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
>= 8.5.0, <= 8.5.4>= 8.6.0, <= 8.6.5>= 8.7.0, <= 8.7.6>= 8.8.0, <= 8.8.11>= 9.1.0, <= 9.1.9>= 9.2.0, <= 9.2.7= 7.2.0= 7.2.1= 8.3.7= 9.4.0= 9.4.1= 9.4.2CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Determine FortiNAC installed versionRun the command: fnsysctl ls /opt or check the FortiNAC UI dashboard for the firmware version. On CLI: execute 'diagnose system version' or check the license information page.Affected if The installed version matches any of these ranges: 8.5.0-8.5.4, 8.6.0-8.6.5, 8.7.0-8.7.6, 8.8.0-8.8.11, 9.1.0-9.1.9, 9.2.0-9.2.7, 7.2.0-7.2.1, 8.3.7, or 9.4.0-9.4.2
-
Identify inter-server communication port exposureReview network configuration to identify which ports are open for inter-server communication. Check FortiNAC network settings in the UI under System > Network > Interfaces or run 'fnsysctl netstat -tulpn' to list listening ports.Affected if The inter-server communication port is accessible from untrusted networks or the internet without network segmentation filters.
-
Verify if inter-server communication is enabledCheck FortiNAC configuration for any inter-server or cluster communication settings. Look for features like 'Communication between servers' or 'Server replication' in the administrative interface.Affected if Inter-server communication functionality is enabled and configured, particularly in clustered or multi-server FortiNAC deployments.
-
Review access control on management interfacesConfirm whether the management and administrative interfaces are exposed externally. Check firewall policies and access control lists protecting the FortiNAC management IP addresses.Affected if Management or inter-server ports are reachable from outside the trusted network without proper ACL restrictions.
You are affected if your FortiNAC version falls within the listed vulnerable ranges AND the inter-server communication port is network-accessible from untrusted sources.
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 FortiNAC 7.2.1, 9.4.3, or 9.2.8 or later. For 8.x versions (which will not be patched), implement network segmentation to restrict access to the inter-server communication port or migrate to a supported version branch.
FortiNAC 7.2.1+ or 9.2.8+ or 9.4.3+ (8.x versions will not be fixed - must migrate to a fixed branch)
- 1. Identify current FortiNAC version by navigating to System > Settings > About in FortiNAC management interface
- 2. If running any 8.x version (8.5.0-8.5.4, 8.6.0-8.6.5, 8.7.0-8.7.6, or 8.8.0-8.8.11), note that these versions will NOT be patched - migration to a fixed branch is required
- 3. Upgrade to FortiNAC 7.2.1 or higher (7.x branch), OR 9.2.8 or higher (9.2.x branch), OR 9.4.3 or higher (9.4.x branch)
- 4. Download the appropriate upgrade image from Fortinet Customer Support portal (https://support.fortinet.com)
- 5. Before upgrade, backup the FortiNAC configuration via System > Settings > Backup & Restore
- 6. Apply the upgrade following Fortinet upgrade documentation - typically via System > Settings > Firmware or CLI using 'execute restore' command
- 7. After upgrade, verify the new version and confirm the vulnerability is remediated
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Fortinac
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2023-33299 — 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-2023-33299 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