dbcve.org
Fortisoar Agent Communication BridgeApplication · Fortinet

CVE-2025-54659

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-03-10
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
An Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability [CWE-22] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSOAR Agent Communication Bridge 1.1.0, FortiSOAR Agent Communication Bridge 1.0 all versions may allow an unauthenticated attacker to read files accessible to the fortisoar user on a system where the agent is deployed, via sending a crafted request to the agent 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 confidence

Path traversal vulnerability in FortiSOAR Agent Communication Bridge allows unauthenticated attackers to read files accessible to the fortisoar user by sending crafted requests to the agent port, exploiting improper path validation in the bridge component.

MitigationApply vendor-provided patch when available; restrict network access to the agent port and implement strict input validation on path parameters to prevent directory traversal.

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
Fortisoar Agent Communication BridgeApplication
Affected:= 1.0= 1.1

CVSS 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
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm FortiSOAR Agent Communication Bridge installation
    Locate the fortisoar-bridge or agent communication bridge component on the system, typically installed as part of FortiSOAR suite. Check for process or service running with name containing 'fortisoar' and 'bridge'.
    Affected if The product is present on the system.
  2. Determine installed version of the bridge component
    Run command to query the installed version of FortiSOAR Agent Communication Bridge (for example: rpm -q fortisoar-bridge, dpkg -l fortisoar-bridge, or check application version file if known). Compare result against affected versions 1.0 and 1.1.
    Affected if Installed version is 1.0 or 1.1.
  3. Verify agent port accessibility
    Identify the agent port used by the bridge component (commonly port 5500 or as configured in bridge configuration). Check if the port is listening on network interfaces (for example: netstat -tlnp | grep <port> or ss -tlnp). Determine if it binds to non-localhost address or is accessible from network.
    Affected if The agent port is listening and accessible from network (non-loopback interface or exposed).
  4. Confirm bridge component is enabled and running
    Verify the bridge service or process is actively running and the bridge functionality is enabled in FortiSOAR configuration.
    Affected if The bridge component is enabled and actively running.

System is affected if FortiSOAR Agent Communication Bridge version 1.0 or 1.1 is installed with the bridge component enabled and the agent port is network-accessible, allowing unauthenticated path traversal attacks.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Apply vendor-provided patch when available; restrict network access to the agent port and implement strict input validation on path parameters to prevent directory traversal.

Fix this in Fortisoar Agent Communication Bridge Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,640
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,224.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-54659 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-54659 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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