CVE-2024-21753
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 improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('path traversal') in Fortinet FortiClientEMS versions 7.2.0 through 7.2.4, 7.0.0 through 7.0.13, 6.4.0 through 6.4.9, 6.2.0 through 6.2.9, 6.0.0 through 6.0.8, 1.2.1 through 1.2.5 allows attacker to perform a denial of service, read or write a limited number of files 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 confidenceFortiClientEMS contains a path traversal vulnerability allowing specially crafted HTTP requests to read or write limited files on the target system, potentially leading to denial of service. The vulnerability affects multiple version branches from 6.0.x through 7.2.x.
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>= 1.2.1, <= 1.2.5>= 6.0.0, <= 6.0.8>= 6.2.0, <= 6.2.9>= 6.4.0, <= 6.4.9>= 7.0.0, <= 7.0.13>= 7.2.0, <= 7.2.4CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 if FortiClientEMS is installedOn the target system, check for FortiClientEMS service or process. On Windows, open Services and look for 'FortiClient Endpoint Management Server' or check Task Manager for emsd.exe process.Affected if FortiClientEMS service or process is found running on the system
-
Determine the installed EMS versionAccess the FortiClientEMS web login page and check the version banner, or query the EMS server directly via HTTP for version information. Alternatively, check the installation directory for version files or use the EMS CLI if available.Affected if The discovered version falls within 1.2.1-1.2.5, 6.0.0-6.0.8, 6.2.0-6.2.9, 6.4.0-6.4.9, 7.0.0-7.0.13, or 7.2.0-7.2.4
-
Verify HTTP service exposureConfirm that the FortiClientEMS web interface (typically on port 443 or 8443) is accessible. Test with a browser or curl command to the EMS server URL.Affected if The EMS web interface is accessible via HTTP/HTTPS and responds to requests
-
Check network accessibility of EMS portsFrom an external or untrusted network perspective, attempt to reach the EMS web ports or review firewall rules to determine if the interface is exposed beyond trusted networks.Affected if The EMS HTTP interface is reachable from untrusted networks or the internet
Your environment is affected if FortiClientEMS is running a version within the affected ranges AND the web interface is accessible, since the path traversal flaw is exploited via crafted HTTP 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 · scopedUpgrade FortiClientEMS to the latest version or a version beyond the affected ranges (7.2.5+, 7.0.14+, 6.4.10+, 6.2.10+, 6.0.9+, 1.2.6+) as specified in Fortinet's advisory. Apply network segmentation to limit EMS exposure to untrusted networks.
FortiClient EMS 7.2.5+, 7.0.14+, 6.4.10+, 6.2.10+, 6.0.9+, or 1.2.6+ depending on your current branch
- 1. Identify the current FortiClient EMS version by navigating to System Settings > About in the EMS management console
- 2. Based on your current major version branch, plan upgrade path: For 7.2.x upgrade to 7.2.5 or later; For 7.0.x upgrade to 7.0.14 or later; For 6.4.x upgrade to 6.4.10 or later; For 6.2.x upgrade to 6.2.10 or later; For 6.0.x upgrade to 6.0.9 or later; For 1.2.x upgrade to 1.2.6 or later
- 3. Backup the EMS database and configuration before upgrading
- 4. Download the appropriate upgraded version from Fortinet's support portal (support.fortinet.com)
- 5. Apply the upgrade during a maintenance window following Fortinet's upgrade documentation
- 6. After upgrade, verify the EMS services are running correctly and the management console is accessible
- 7. Confirm the version number reflects the patched release
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-2024-21753 — 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-2024-21753 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