CVE-2024-52964
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 Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability [CWE-22] in Fortinet FortiManager version 7.6.0 through 7.6.1, 7.4.0 through 7.4.5, 7.2.0 through 7.2.9 and below 7.0.13 & FortiManager Cloud version 7.6.0 through 7.6.1, 7.4.0 through 7.4.5 and before 7.2.9 allows an authenticated remote attacker to overwrite arbitrary files via FGFM 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 confidenceA path traversal vulnerability in FortiManager's FGFM protocol allows authenticated attackers to craft requests that bypass directory restrictions and write to arbitrary files on the system by using '..' sequences in path parameters.
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, < 7.0.14>= 7.2.0, < 7.2.10>= 7.4.0, < 7.4.6>= 7.6.0, < 7.6.2>= 6.4.1, <= 7.0.13>= 7.2.1, < 7.2.10>= 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 FortiManager versionRun 'get system status' via CLI or check the dashboard in the web UI to display the current firmware version.Affected if The displayed version falls within any of these ranges: 6.2.0 to 7.0.13, 7.2.0 to 7.2.9, 7.4.0 to 7.4.5, or 7.6.0 to 7.6.1 (or for Cloud: 6.4.1 to 7.0.13, 7.2.1 to 7.2.9, or 7.4.1 to 7.4.5).
-
Confirm FortiManager Cloud variantCheck if the deployment is FortiManager Cloud by running 'get system status' and looking for 'Cloud' in the model description, or verify through the FortiCloud portal.Affected if The platform is FortiManager Cloud and the version is in the affected Cloud ranges listed above.
-
Verify FGFM protocol is enabledRun 'show system global' and look for 'fgfm-daemon' or 'fgfm-sock-timeout' settings, or check if port 5414 is listening using 'diag netstat -an | grep 5414'.Affected if The FGFM daemon is enabled and the port is listening, making the vulnerability accessible.
-
Check FGFM network exposureReview access policies and firewall rules to determine if the FGFM port (default 5414) is exposed to untrusted networks or the internet.Affected if FGFM is accessible from untrusted networks, increasing exploitability.
You are affected if your FortiManager version falls within any of the affected version ranges listed above AND the FGFM protocol is enabled on your 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 · scoped7.0.147.2.107.4.6
Upgrade FortiManager to version 7.6.2/7.4.6/7.2.10/7.0.13 or later (or corresponding patched version for FortiManager Cloud) to remediate this vulnerability.
FortiManager: 7.0.14, 7.2.10, 7.4.6, or 7.6.2 (depending on current branch) | FortiManager Cloud: 7.2.9+, 7.4.6, or 7.6.2
- 1. Identify the current FortiManager or FortiManager Cloud version via the web UI (System Settings > Dashboard > Status) or CLI: get system status
- 2. Determine the appropriate upgrade path based on current version and deployment type (on-premises vs cloud)
- 3. For FortiManager on-premises: upgrade to 7.0.14 (if on 7.0.x), 7.2.10 (if on 7.2.x), 7.4.6 (if on 7.4.x), or 7.6.2 (if on 7.6.x)
- 4. For FortiManager Cloud: upgrade to 7.2.9+, 7.4.6, or 7.6.2 depending on current branch
- 5. Download the firmware from Fortinet Customer Support portal (https://support.fortinet.com)
- 6. Backup the current configuration via CLI: execute backup config tftp/ftp <filename > or via web UI (System Settings > Configuration > Backup)
- 7. Upload the firmware image via FortiManager web UI (System Settings > Firmware) or CLI: execute system firmware upgrade <image_name>
- 8. Verify the upgrade completed successfully and the version matches the target fixed release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $4,416.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-52964 — 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-2024-52964 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