CVE-2024-50570
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 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information vulnerability [CWE-312] in FortiClientWindows 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, 7.0.0 through 7.0.13 and FortiClientLinux 7.4.0 through 7.4.2, 7.2.0 through 7.2.7, 7.0.0 through 7.0.13 may permit a local authenticated user to retrieve VPN password via memory dump, due to JavaScript's garbage collector
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 confidenceFortiClientWindows and FortiClientLinux versions 7.0.x through 7.4.x store VPN passwords in cleartext within process memory. A local authenticated attacker can exploit JavaScript's garbage collector behavior to retrieve sensitive VPN credentials via memory dump analysis.
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>= 7.0.0, < 7.0.14>= 7.0.0, < 7.2.8>= 7.2.0, < 7.2.7>= 7.4.0, < 7.4.2>= 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
- Local
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/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.
-
Check FortiClient version on WindowsOpen Windows Control Panel > Programs and Features, or right-click FortiClient icon in system tray and select 'About'. Record the exact version number (e.g., 7.4.1, 7.2.5, 7.0.10).Affected if The installed version is 7.0.x below 7.0.14, or 7.2.x below 7.2.7, or 7.4.x below 7.4.2 for Windows.
-
Check FortiClient version on LinuxOpen a terminal and run: dpkg -l | grep forticlient or rpm -qa | grep forticlient. Alternatively, run '/opt/forticlient/forticlient --version' if installed. Record the exact version number.Affected if The installed version is 7.0.x below 7.0.14, or 7.2.x below 7.2.8, or 7.4.x below 7.4.3 for Linux.
-
Verify VPN feature is configuredOpen FortiClient and navigate to the VPN tab. Check if any VPN connections (SSL-VPN or IPsec) are configured and enabled. Look for saved credentials or 'Save Password' options.Affected if VPN profiles with saved passwords exist in the FortiClient configuration.
-
Inspect stored VPN credentials (Windows)Navigate to %APPDATA%\Fortinet\FortiClient\ or %LOCALAPPDATA%\Fortinet\FortiClient\ and examine configuration files (such as *.xml or *.conf) for VPN profiles. Look for stored password fields.Affected if Passwords appear in cleartext (not encrypted or masked) within configuration files in the FortiClient profile directory.
-
Inspect stored VPN credentials (Linux)Navigate to ~/.forticlient/ or /etc/forticlient/ and examine configuration files for VPN profiles. Look for password fields in XML or config files.Affected if Passwords appear in cleartext (not encrypted or masked) within configuration files in the FortiClient profile directory.
You are affected if FortiClient Windows version is 7.0.x < 7.0.14, 7.2.x < 7.2.7, or 7.4.x < 7.4.2; or Linux version is 7.0.x < 7.0.14, 7.2.x < 7.2.8, or 7.4.x < 7.4.3, AND VPN profiles with saved passwords are configured.
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 · scoped7.0.147.2.77.2.8
Update FortiClient to the latest patched versions: Windows 7.4.2+/7.2.7+/7.0.14+ and Linux 7.4.3+/7.2.8+/7.0.14+ to address the cleartext memory storage issue.
FortiClient Windows: 7.4.2+, 7.2.8+, 7.0.14+ | FortiClient Linux: 7.4.3+, 7.2.8+, 7.0.14+
- 1. Identify the installed FortiClient version (Windows or Linux) from Add/Remove Programs or the FortiClient GUI
- 2. For FortiClient Windows: If version is 7.4.0-7.4.1, upgrade to 7.4.2 or later; if 7.2.0-7.2.6, upgrade to 7.2.8 or later; if 7.0.0-7.0.13, upgrade to 7.0.14 or later
- 3. For FortiClient Linux: If version is 7.4.0-7.4.2, upgrade to 7.4.3 or later; if 7.2.0-7.2.7, upgrade to 7.2.8 or later; if 7.0.0-7.0.13, upgrade to 7.0.14 or later
- 4. Obtain the upgrade from the official Fortinet download center at https://www.fortinet.com/support/product-downloads
- 5. Before upgrading, backup any existing FortiClient configurations if needed
- 6. Install the upgraded FortiClient version
- 7. Verify the new version is correctly installed and test VPN connectivity
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-50570 — 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-2024-50570 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