CVE-2024-23665
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 · uneditedMultiple improper authorization vulnerabilities [CWE-285] in FortiWeb version 7.4.2 and below, version 7.2.7 and below, version 7.0.10 and below, version 6.4.3 and below, version 6.3.23 and below may allow an authenticated attacker to perform unauthorized ADOM operations via 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 · high confidenceFortiWeb versions 7.4.2 and below, 7.2.7 and below, 7.0.10 and below, 6.4.3 and below, and 6.3.23 and below contain multiple improper authorization vulnerabilities (CWE-285) in ADOM (Administrative Domain) management. An authenticated attacker with standard user credentials can send crafted HTTP requests to bypass authorization checks and perform unauthorized operations on administrative domains outside their assigned scope.
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>= 6.3.0, <= 6.3.23>= 6.4.0, <= 6.4.3>= 7.0.0, <= 7.0.10>= 7.2.0, < 7.2.8>= 7.4.0, < 7.4.3CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 FortiWeb versionRun the CLI command 'get system status' or check the FortiWeb GUI dashboard to locate the firmware version displayedAffected if The installed version falls within 6.3.0-6.3.23, 6.4.0-6.4.3, 7.0.0-7.0.10, 7.2.0-7.2.7, or 7.4.0-7.4.2
-
Verify ADOM is configuredRun the CLI command 'get system admin' or access the Administrative Domains section in the FortiWeb GUI to check if ADOMs are created and assignedAffected if ADOM functionality is enabled and multiple administrative domains exist in the environment
-
Review user role assignmentsRun the CLI command 'get system admin user' or inspect user accounts in the GUI to identify standard users assigned to specific ADOMsAffected if Standard user accounts with limited ADOM scope are present in the system
-
Audit recent administrative actionsReview FortiWeb logs and audit trails for administrative operations performed by standard users, cross-referencing against their assigned ADOM scopeAffected if Standard user accounts have performed operations on ADOMs outside their assigned scope
You are affected if your FortiWeb version is within the vulnerable ranges AND ADOM is enabled with standard user accounts assigned to specific administrative domains.
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 · scoped7.2.87.4.3
Apply the vendor-supplied security patches for FortiWeb (7.4.3, 7.2.8, 7.0.11, 6.4.4, and 6.3.24 or later) after testing in a non-production environment. Verify ADOM authorization controls post-upgrade.
FortiWeb 6.3.24 (or latest 6.3.x), 6.4.4 (or latest 6.4.x), 7.0.11 (or latest 7.0.x), 7.2.8 (or latest 7.2.x) - upgrade to the latest available version in your respective branch
- 1. Identify the currently installed FortiWeb version by running: get system status or fnsysctl cat /etc/version
- 2. Determine which version branch your current installation falls into (6.3.x, 6.4.x, 7.0.x, or 7.2.x)
- 3. Access Fortinet customer support portal or FortiGuard at fortiguard.fortinet.com to download the latest FortiWeb firmware for your version branch
- 4. Backup the current FortiWeb configuration using the command: execute backup full-config <tftp|ftp|scp> <remote-ip> <filename.conf>
- 5. Upload the new firmware image via Web UI (System > Firmware) or CLI: execute system firmware-upgrade <image-name> on <device-name>
- 6. After reboot, verify the upgrade was successful and confirm the new version is installed
- 7. Verify the fix by testing that ADOM operations now properly enforce authorization checks according to assigned role permissions
- 8. Restore configuration if needed and validate all ADOM-related functionality works correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $4,160.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-23665 — 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-2024-23665 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