CVE-2025-47761
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 Exposed IOCTL with Insufficient Access Control vulnerability [CWE-782] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiClientWindows 7.4.0 through 7.4.3, FortiClientWindows 7.2.0 through 7.2.9 may allow an authenticated local user to execute unauthorized code via fortips driver. Success of the attack would require bypassing the Windows memory protections such as Heap integrity and HSP. In addition, it requires a valid and running VPN IPSec connection.
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 confidenceThis is a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the fortips driver of FortiClientWindows. An authenticated local user can send IOCTL requests to the driver that lack proper access control checks (CWE-782), potentially allowing execution of unauthorized code. Successful exploitation requires an active VPN IPSec connection and bypassing Windows memory protections (Heap integrity and HSP).
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>= 7.2.0, < 7.2.10>= 7.4.0, < 7.4.4CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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.
-
Check installed FortiClient versionOpen Windows Control Panel > Programs and Features, or run 'wmic product get name,version' and look for FortiClient. Alternatively, check C:\Program Files\Fortinet\FortiClient\ folder for version info.Affected if Version is >= 7.2.0 and < 7.2.10, OR >= 7.4.0 and < 7.4.4
-
Verify fortips driver presenceOpen Device Manager and look under 'System devices' for 'fortips' driver, or run 'sc query fortips' from an elevated command prompt.Affected if The fortips driver is installed or present on the system
-
Check for active IPSec VPN connectionsOpen FortiClient GUI and check the VPN status panel, or run 'ipconfig /all' and look for active VPN interface IPs. Also check FortiClient logs in %ProgramData%\Fortinet\FortiClient\logs\ for active IPSec sessions.Affected if An active IPSec VPN connection is currently established
-
Confirm local user authentication contextVerify that a local user account is currently logged in and authenticated to the Windows system. This is required for exploitation.Affected if A local authenticated user session exists on the machine
The system is affected if FortiClient version is within the vulnerable ranges (7.2.0-7.2.9 or 7.4.0-7.4.3) AND the fortips driver is present AND an active IPSec VPN connection is established with a local authenticated user present.
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 · scoped7.2.107.4.4
Upgrade to Fortinet FortiClientWindows version 7.4.4 or later (or the latest patched version for 7.2). Ensure VPN IPSec connections are only established in trusted environments and monitor for suspicious local processes.
FortiClient Windows 7.2.10 or 7.4.4
- 1. Check the current FortiClient Windows version by opening FortiClient and navigating to Help > About
- 2. If running version 7.2.0-7.2.9, plan upgrade to version 7.2.10 or later
- 3. If running version 7.4.0-7.4.3, plan upgrade to version 7.4.4 or later
- 4. Backup any existing FortiClient configuration or VPN profiles if possible
- 5. Download the appropriate FortiClient installer from the Fortinet Customer Support portal (https://support.fortinet.com)
- 6. Uninstall the current FortiClient version via Windows Programs and Features
- 7. Install the new FortiClient version (7.2.10 or 7.4.4)
- 8. Reconfigure VPN IPSec connections after upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-47761 — 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-2025-47761 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