Fortidlp AgentApplication · Fortinet
CVE-2025-54658
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 FortiDLP Agent's Outlookproxy plugin for MacOS 11.5.1 and 11.4.2 through 11.4.6 and 11.3.2 through 11.3.4 and 11.2.0 through 11.2.3 and 11.1.1 through 11.1.2 and 11.0.1 and 10.5.1 and 10.4.0, and 10.3.1 may allow an authenticated attacker to escalate their privilege to Root via sending a crafted request to a local listening port.
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 FortiDLP Agent's Outlookproxy plugin on macOS allows an authenticated attacker to escalate privileges to root by sending a crafted request to a local listening port, exploiting insufficient path validation to access restricted directories.
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
Fortidlp AgentApplication
>= 10.3.1, <= 11.5.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/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.
-
Determine installed FortiDLP Agent versionRun: defaults read /Applications/FortiDLP\ Agent.app/Contents/Info CFBundleVersion or check /Applications/FortiDLP Agent/Contents/Info.plist for CFBundleVersion valueAffected if Installed version is >= 10.3.1 AND <= 11.5.1
-
Verify Outlookproxy plugin is enabledCheck for presence of Outlookproxy configuration: ls -la /Library/Application\ Support/FortiDLP/Agent/config/ or look for outlookproxy*.conf files in the Agent config directoryAffected if Outlookproxy plugin configuration files exist and the plugin is loaded/enabled
-
Confirm local listening port is activeRun: lsof -i -P | grep -i outlookproxy or netstat -an | grep <port> to identify if the vulnerable Outlookproxy service is listening on a local portAffected if The Outlookproxy service is bound to a local port and accessible
-
Check file permissions on FortiDLP directoriesRun: ls -la /Library/Application\ Support/FortiDLP/ to verify directory permissions allow unauthorized accessAffected if Any authenticated user can read/write to FortiDLP configuration or data directories
User is affected if FortiDLP Agent version is between 10.3.1 and 11.5.1 inclusive AND the Outlookproxy plugin is enabled with an accessible local listening port.
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.
From vendor dataApply the vendor-supplied patch by upgrading FortiDLP Agent to the fixed versions as specified by Fortinet for the affected releases.
Fix this in Fortidlp Agent
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-54658 — 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-2025-54658 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