FortisoarApplication · Fortinet
CVE-2024-48891
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 Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') vulnerability [CWE-78] in FortiSOAR 7.6.0 through 7.6.1, 7.5.0 through 7.5.1, 7.4 all versions, 7.3 all versions may allow an attacker who has already obtained a non-login low privileged shell access (via another hypothetical vulnerability) to perform a local privilege escalation via crafted commands.
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 confidenceOS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in FortiSOAR versions 7.3 through 7.6.1 allows an attacker with existing non-login low-privileged shell access to perform local privilege escalation by injecting crafted OS commands. This is a secondary attack requiring prior initial compromise via another hypothetical vulnerability.
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
FortisoarApplication
>= 7.3.0, < 7.5.2>= 7.6.0, < 7.6.2CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/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 FortiSOAR installed versionLocate the FortiSOAR version via the web UI (typically in Settings > About) or by running the platform CLI command to retrieve the version numberAffected if The installed version falls within 7.3.0 to 7.5.1, or 7.6.0 to 7.6.1 (vulnerable ranges)
-
Determine if shell access existsReview system logs, SSH authentication records, and any shell session histories for unauthorized or unexpected login eventsAffected if There is evidence of non-login low-privileged shell access by an unauthorized actor on the system
-
Audit user accounts and privilegesEnumerate all system users and check for unexpected privilege escalations, particularly look for new accounts or accounts with elevated permissions that were not previously authorizedAffected if New privileged accounts exist that were not created through legitimate administrative processes
-
Inspect for suspicious command executionReview command history, process logs, and system audit trails for execution of OS commands that were not initiated by legitimate administratorsAffected if Unfamiliar or unauthorized OS commands have been executed on the system
A user is affected if their FortiSOAR version is 7.3.0-7.5.1 or 7.6.0-7.6.1 AND there is evidence of prior unauthorized shell access enabling potential privilege escalation.
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 · scoped7.5.27.6.2
Apply vendor-provided patches when available; until then, prioritize preventing initial access to limit exposure to this privilege escalation vector, as the vulnerability requires pre-existing shell access.
FortiSOAR 7.5.2 or later for 7.5.x line; FortiSOAR 7.6.2 or later for 7.6.x line; or migrate to latest stable release (7.7.x+)
- 1. Identify the current FortiSOAR version by checking the About section in the FortiSOAR UI or running 'fpssa Version' command
- 2. If running version 7.3.x or 7.4.x: Plan migration path to version 7.5.2 or later (7.5.x LTS) or 7.6.2 or later (7.6.x)
- 3. If running version 7.5.0-7.5.1: Upgrade to FortiSOAR 7.5.2 or later
- 4. If running version 7.6.0-7.6.1: Upgrade to FortiSOAR 7.6.2 or later
- 5. Before upgrading, take a complete backup of the FortiSOAR database and configuration
- 6. Review FortiSOAR upgrade documentation for your specific deployment type (appliance, container, etc.)
- 7. Perform the upgrade during a planned maintenance window
- 8. After upgrade, verify the FortiSOAR version matches the fixed release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Fortisoar
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-48891 — 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-2024-48891 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