CVE-2024-33504
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 hard-coded cryptographic key to encrypt sensitive data vulnerability [CWE-321] in FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.1, 7.4.0 through 7.4.5, 7.2.0 through 7.2.9, 7.0 all versions, 6.4 all versions may allow an attacker with JSON API access permissions to decrypt some secrets even if the 'private-data-encryption' setting is enabled.
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 confidenceFortiManager contains a hard-coded cryptographic key used to encrypt sensitive data. Even when the 'private-data-encryption' setting is enabled, an attacker with JSON API access permissions can exploit this hardcoded key to decrypt some secrets stored in the system.
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>= 6.4.0, < 7.2.10>= 7.4.0, < 7.4.6>= 7.6.0, < 7.6.2>= 6.4.1, < 7.2.9>= 7.4.1, < 7.4.6CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 FortiManager product and versionRun the command to display system information, such as 'get system status' or 'fnsysctl get system status' from the CLI, or check the web UI dashboard for the firmware versionAffected if The displayed version falls within any of these ranges: FortiManager >= 6.4.0 and < 7.2.10; >= 7.4.0 and < 7.4.6; >= 7.6.0 and < 7.6.2. For FortiManager Cloud: >= 6.4.1 and < 7.2.9; >= 7.4.1 and < 7.4.6.
-
Verify if private-data-encryption is enabledRun the command to check the encryption settings, such as 'get system global' and look for 'private-data-encryption' status, or check via the web UI under System Settings > Advanced > Private Data EncryptionAffected if The private-data-encryption setting is set to 'enable'. Note that this setting being enabled does not prevent the vulnerability because the hardcoded key can still decrypt the data.
-
Review JSON API access permissionsCheck user account and API token configurations by running commands to display administrator accounts and their JSON API permissions, such as 'get system admin' and review the 'json-api' or 'web-service' permission flagsAffected if Any administrator account, API user, or token has JSON API access (json-api, web-service, or REST API permissions) enabled. This permission is required for an attacker to exploit the hardcoded key.
A user is affected if their FortiManager or FortiManager Cloud version falls within the affected ranges AND the private-data-encryption feature is enabled AND there are accounts with JSON API access permissions present on the system.
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 · scoped7.2.97.2.107.4.6
Upgrade FortiManager to a version beyond the affected releases (7.6.2, 7.4.6, 7.2.10, or later) to receive the patch that replaces the hardcoded key with a properly generated cryptographic key.
FortiManager: 7.6.2 (or 7.4.6 or 7.2.10 depending on branch); FortiManager Cloud: 7.4.6 (or 7.2.9)
- 1. Identify current FortiManager or FortiManager Cloud version using 'get system status' CLI command
- 2. Based on current version, determine the appropriate upgrade path to a fixed release
- 3. Backup FortiManager configuration before upgrading
- 4. Download the appropriate firmware from Fortinet support portal (fortinet.com/support)
- 5. Upload and install the firmware via GUI (System Settings > Firmware) or CLI: 'execute firmware upgrade <image_name>
- 6. After upgrade, verify the system is operational: 'get system status'
- 7. Confirm the 'private-data-encryption' setting is still properly configured: 'get system global | grep private-data-encryption'
- 8. Test that secrets can no longer be decrypted using the hard-coded key
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-33504 — 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-2024-33504 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