CVE-2025-61848
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 in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.4, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiAnalyzer 7.2 all versions, FortiAnalyzer 7.0 all versions, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.6.2 through 7.6.3, FortiAnalyzer-BigData 7.6.0 through 7.6.1, FortiAnalyzer-BigData 7.4.0 through 7.4.5, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.4, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiManager 7.2 all versions, FortiManager 7.0 all versions, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.2 through 7.6.4 may allow a privileged authenticated attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via JSON RPC API
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 the JSON RPC API of FortiAnalyzer and FortiManager allows a privileged authenticated attacker to inject malicious SQL commands that could lead to execution of unauthorized code or commands. The vulnerability affects multiple version ranges (7.0.x, 7.2.x, 7.4.0-7.4.8, 7.6.0-7.6.4) across both product lines and their Cloud variants.
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, < 7.4.9>= 7.6.0, < 7.6.5>= 7.0.0, < 7.4.9>= 7.6.0, < 7.6.5>= 7.0.0, < 7.4.9>= 7.6.0, < 7.6.5>= 7.0.0, < 7.4.9>= 7.6.0, < 7.6.5CVSS 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 FortiAnalyzer or FortiManager versionRun 'get system status' command via CLI or check the web UI dashboard for the firmware versionAffected if Version is 7.0.x, 7.2.x, 7.4.0-7.4.8, or 7.6.0-7.6.4
-
Confirm JSON RPC API is accessibleCheck if the /jsonrpc endpoint is exposed and reachable on the management interfaceAffected if JSON RPC API endpoint is accessible from network segments where untrusted users operate
-
Audit API user privilegesReview user accounts with API access using 'diagnose api-user list' or check admin profiles in the web UIAffected if Privileged API accounts exist that could be compromised to inject SQL commands
Your environment is affected if FortiAnalyzer/FortiManager version falls within 7.0.x through 7.6.4 and the JSON RPC API is accessible to privileged users
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 · scoped7.4.97.6.5
Apply vendor-supplied patches by upgrading to FortiAnalyzer/FortiManager versions beyond the affected ranges (7.4.9+, 7.6.5+). As a compensating control, restrict API access to trusted users and monitor for suspicious SQL-like patterns in API requests.
FortiAnalyzer/FortiManager 7.4.x → 7.4.9 or later; FortiAnalyzer/FortiManager 7.6.x → 7.6.5 or later
- Identify the exact current version of FortiAnalyzer, FortiAnalyzer Cloud, FortiManager, or FortiManager Cloud using the web UI or CLI (execute 'get system status')
- Back up the device configuration and, if possible, create a snapshot or backup of the virtual machine
- For FortiAnalyzer/FortiManager 7.6.x deployments: Upgrade to version 7.6.5 or later
- For FortiAnalyzer/FortiManager 7.4.x deployments: Upgrade to version 7.4.9 or later
- For FortiAnalyzer/FortiManager 7.2.x deployments: Upgrade to the latest 7.2.x version (7.2.10 or later if available) or migrate to 7.4.9+/7.6.5+
- For FortiAnalyzer/FortiManager 7.0.x deployments: Upgrade to the latest 7.0.x version or migrate to 7.4.9+/7.6.5+
- After upgrade, verify the system status confirms the new version is running and validate that the JSON RPC API functionality works correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $3,840.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-61848 — 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-2025-61848 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