CVE-2025-59922
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 neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability [CWE-89] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiClientEMS 7.4.3 through 7.4.4, FortiClientEMS 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, FortiClientEMS 7.2.0 through 7.2.10, FortiClientEMS 7.0 all versions may allow an authenticated attacker with at least read-only admin permission to execute unauthorized SQL code or commands via crafted HTTP or HTTPs 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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in Fortinet FortiClientEMS allows authenticated attackers with at least read-only admin privileges to execute unauthorized SQL commands via crafted HTTP/HTTPS requests. The vulnerability affects versions 7.4.3-7.4.4, 7.4.0-7.4.1, 7.2.0-7.2.10, and 7.0.
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, < 7.2.12>= 7.4.0, < 7.4.5CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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.
-
Identify FortiClientEMS installation and versionOn the Windows server running FortiClientEMS, open FortiClientEMS and navigate to Help > About, or run 'flxemsd --version' from the command line to retrieve the installed version numberAffected if The installed version falls within 7.0.0 to 7.2.11 (inclusive) OR 7.4.0 to 7.4.4 (inclusive)
-
Confirm the EMS web console is accessibleAttempt to access the FortiClientEMS web interface via browser at https://<EMS_HOST>:10443 or the configured port. If the login page loads, the web interface is exposedAffected if The EMS web console is reachable over HTTP/HTTPS from network segments where untrusted users could potentially authenticate
-
Verify admin user accounts existIn the FortiClientEMS console, go to Administration > Administrators to list all configured admin accounts. Note any accounts with 'Read Only' or 'Admin' privilege levelsAffected if At least one admin account with read-only or higher privileges is configured, which would satisfy the authentication requirement for this vulnerability
-
Review EMS logs for suspicious SQL-like request patternsIn FortiClientEMS, go to Log & Reports > Event Log and search for entries containing SQL keywords (SELECT, UNION, INSERT, DROP) in URL parameters, or check the web server logs for unusual query stringsAffected if Logs contain HTTP requests with SQL syntax in parameters, indicating possible exploitation attempts
You are affected if FortiClientEMS version is 7.0.0 through 7.2.11 or 7.4.0 through 7.4.4 AND the EMS web interface is accessible to attackers who could obtain valid read-only admin credentials.
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 · scoped7.2.127.4.5
Upgrade FortiClientEMS to a patched version as specified in Fortinet's security advisory. If immediate patching is not possible, restrict administrative access to trusted IP addresses and monitor for suspicious SQL-like patterns in HTTP requests.
Upgrade to FortiClientEMS 7.2.12 or later for the 7.2.x branch, or 7.4.5 or later for the 7.4.x branch (recommended: latest stable 7.4.x release)
- 1. Identify the current FortiClientEMS version by accessing the EMS management console or checking the system information page.
- 2. Determine which upgrade path applies: if running 7.0.x, upgrade to 7.2.12 or later; if running 7.2.x, upgrade to 7.2.12 or later; if running 7.4.x, upgrade to 7.4.5 or later.
- 3. Download the appropriate fixed version from the Fortinet Support Portal (https://support.fortinet.com) under the FortiClientEMS product section.
- 4. Review Fortinet's upgrade documentation and release notes for any prerequisites or migration considerations.
- 5. Before upgrading, perform a complete backup of the EMS database and configuration.
- 6. Apply the upgrade during a planned maintenance window following Fortinet's standard upgrade procedure.
- 7. After upgrade, verify the new version is running and confirm the vulnerability is resolved by checking the EMS version information.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-59922 — 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-2025-59922 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