CVE-2023-40721
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 use of externally-controlled format string vulnerability [CWE-134] vulnerability in Fortinet allows a privileged attacker to execute arbitrary code or commands via specially crafted 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 confidenceA format string vulnerability (CWE-134) in Fortinet products allows a privileged attacker to execute arbitrary code or commands through specially crafted requests. The flaw occurs when user-supplied input is improperly used in format string functions, enabling an attacker to read from or write to memory locations.
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>= 6.2.0, < 7.0.14>= 7.2.0, < 7.2.7= 7.4.0>= 7.0.0, < 7.0.3>= 7.2.0, < 7.2.3>= 1.2.0, < 7.0.15>= 7.2.0, < 7.2.8= 7.4.0>= 1.0.0, < 1.2.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/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 Fortinet product and versionRun 'get system status' via CLI or check the web UI dashboard for the firmware version. Note the exact version number displayed (e.g., 7.2.5).Affected if The product is FortiOS, FortiProxy, FortiSwitch Manager, or FortiPAM and the version falls within the affected ranges: FortiOS 6.2.0-7.0.13, 7.2.0-7.2.6, or 7.4.0; FortiSwitch Manager 7.0.0-7.0.2, 7.2.0-7.2.2; FortiProxy 1.2.0-7.0.14, 7.2.0-7.2.7, or 7.4.0; FortiPAM 1.0.0-1.1.x.
-
Confirm administrative access is enabledCheck 'show system interface' and look for management interfaces (port1, mgmt, etc.) with 'set allowaccess https http ssh' or similar. Run 'get hardware nic' to see which interfaces are active.Affected if The administrative interface (HTTPS, HTTP, or SSH) is bound to a reachable network interface, especially if accessible from untrusted networks.
-
Check for privileged user accountsRun 'get system admin' to list administrative accounts. Verify which users have 'super_admin' or 'admin' profile privileges.Affected if There are privileged admin accounts configured, as the CVE requires a privileged attacker to exploit the format string vulnerability.
A user is affected if they are running any of the listed Fortinet products within the specified version ranges AND the administrative interface is accessible to privileged users, since the format string flaw requires a privileged attacker to craft malicious requests.
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 · scoped1.2.07.0.37.0.14
Apply vendor-provided security patches for the affected Fortinet product. Until a patch is available, restrict administrative access to trusted personnel only and monitor for suspicious requests.
FortiOS: 7.0.14+, 7.2.7+, or 7.4.1+ | FortiSwitch Manager: 7.0.3+, 7.2.3+ | FortiProxy: 7.0.15+, 7.2.8+, 7.4.1+ | FortiPAM: 1.2.0+
- 1. Identify the affected Fortinet product (FortiOS, FortiSwitch Manager, FortiProxy, or FortiPAM) running in your environment
- 2. Check the current version of the affected product using the CLI command: 'get system status' or through the web UI
- 3. Based on your current version branch, plan the upgrade:
- - If running FortiOS 6.2.x: upgrade to FortiOS 7.0.14 or later (recommended 7.0.x latest), or 7.2.7+, or 7.4.1+
- - If running FortiOS 7.0.x: upgrade to FortiOS 7.0.14 or later
- - If running FortiOS 7.2.x: upgrade to FortiOS 7.2.7 or later
- - If running FortiOS 7.4.0: upgrade to FortiOS 7.4.1 or later
- - If running FortiSwitch Manager 7.0.x: upgrade to 7.0.3 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2023-40721 — 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-2023-40721 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