CVE-2024-23106
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 restriction of excessive authentication attempts [CWE-307] in FortiClientEMS version 7.2.0 through 7.2.4 and before 7.0.10 allows an unauthenticated attacker to try a brute force attack against the FortiClientEMS console via crafted HTTP or HTTPS 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 versions 7.2.0-7.2.4 and before 7.0.10 lack proper rate limiting on the web console login page, allowing unauthenticated attackers to conduct unlimited brute force attempts via crafted HTTP/HTTPS requests. This enables attackers to systematically guess credentials until they successfully authenticate, potentially gaining full administrative access to the EMS server.
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, <= 6.2.9>= 6.4.0, <= 6.4.9>= 7.0.0, < 7.0.11>= 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
- 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.
-
Identify FortiClientEMS installation and versionOn the EMS server, check the installed version via the system dashboard in the web UI, or run 'flxsp --version' or check the FortiClientEMS service info through Windows Services or Linux service commands depending on the OS. Alternatively, check the installation directory for version information files.Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: 6.2.0-6.2.9, 6.4.0-6.4.9, 7.0.0-7.0.10, or 7.2.0-7.2.4.
-
Verify the web console is accessibleConfirm that the FortiClientEMS web interface (typically ports 80/443 or custom HTTPS port) is reachable from network segments. Check if the EMS service is running and the web server is listening.Affected if The web console is exposed and reachable from any network where untrusted users could send HTTP/HTTPS requests.
-
Check for rate limiting or account lockout configurationLog into the FortiClientEMS admin console and navigate to System Settings > Administrator Settings or Security Settings. Look for options related to 'Account Lockout', 'Login Attempt Limit', 'Rate Limiting', or 'Failed Login Threshold'. Note whether any restrictions are configured.Affected if No rate limiting or account lockout policy is configured, or the threshold is set to unlimited/unrestricted.
-
Review authentication logs for brute force patternsAccess the FortiClientEMS logs via the web UI (System Settings > Logs) or the log files on the server. Search for repeated failed login attempts from the same IP address or multiple usernames, which would indicate active brute force activity.Affected if Logs show numerous failed login attempts from a single source or pattern of systematic credential guessing without account lockout triggering.
You are affected if FortiClientEMS is installed with a version in the vulnerable ranges and the web console login page is network-accessible without effective rate limiting or account lockout controls.
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 · scoped7.0.117.2.5
Apply vendor-supplied patches (7.2.5 or 7.0.10 and later) to implement account lockout and rate limiting. As an interim measure, restrict source IP access to the management interface via firewall rules or VPN.
FortiClientEMS 7.0.11 or later, or 7.2.5 or later (6.2.x and 6.4.x should migrate to 7.0.11+/7.2.5+)
- 1. Identify the current FortiClientEMS version by checking the EMS console or using the CLI command 'get system status'
- 2. For FortiClientEMS 7.0.x deployments: Upgrade to version 7.0.11 or later
- 3. For FortiClientEMS 7.2.x deployments: Upgrade to version 7.2.5 or later
- 4. For FortiClientEMS 6.2.x and 6.4.x: These versions are end-of-life; upgrade to a supported version (7.0.11+ or 7.2.5+)
- 5. After upgrading, verify the installation by checking the system version
- 6. Review the FortiClientEMS logs for any signs of brute force attempts and ensure the authentication mechanism is functioning correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-23106 — 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-2024-23106 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