ForticlientApplication · Fortinet
CVE-2025-62676
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 Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following') vulnerability [CWE-59] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiClientWindows 7.4.0 through 7.4.4, FortiClientWindows 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiClientWindows 7.0 all versions may allow a local low-privilege attacker to perform an arbitrary file write with elevated permissions via crafted named pipe messages.
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 local low-privilege attacker can exploit improper link resolution (CWE-59) in FortiClientWindows versions 7.0, 7.2.0-7.2.12, and 7.4.0-7.4.4 by sending crafted messages to named pipes, enabling arbitrary file write with elevated (SYSTEM) permissions. This constitutes local privilege escalation.
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
ForticlientApplication
>= 7.0.0, < 7.2.13>= 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Verify FortiClientWindows is installedOpen Programs and Features (appwiz.cpl) or check C:\Program Files\Fortinet\FortiClient for the FortiClient.exe executableAffected if FortiClientWindows is present on the system
-
Determine installed FortiClient versionRight-click FortiClient.exe, select Properties, then look at the Details tab for Product Version, or run 'FortiClient.exe --version' from the installation directoryAffected if Version falls within 7.0.0 to 7.2.12 inclusive, OR 7.4.0 to 7.4.4 inclusive
-
Confirm the FortiClient service is runningOpen Services (services.msc) and locate the FortiClient service, or run 'Get-Service FortiClient*' in PowerShellAffected if The FortiClient service is active and the named pipe interface is exposed to the low-privilege attacker
-
Check for suspicious named pipe activityUse Sysinternals PipeList or monitor with Process Monitor (ProcMon) for writes to named pipes prefixed with 'FortiClient_' or similar FortiClient-related pipe names from non-elevated processesAffected if Untrusted processes are successfully communicating with FortiClient named pipes, indicating the attack surface is exposed
The system is affected if FortiClientWindows is installed with a version between 7.0.0 and 7.2.12 or between 7.4.0 and 7.4.4, and the FortiClient service is running, allowing a local low-privilege attacker to potentially escalate to SYSTEM via named pipe manipulation.
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 · scoped7.2.137.4.5
Apply vendor-supplied patches (FortiClientWindows 7.4.5 and 7.2.13 or later). Until patched, limit local user privileges and monitor for suspicious named pipe communications involving FortiClient processes.
FortiClient 7.2.13 or 7.4.5 (depending on your current branch)
- Navigate to the official Fortinet support portal at https://support.fortinet.com/
- Download the appropriate installer for your platform: FortiClient 7.2.13 or FortiClient 7.4.5
- Verify the installer integrity using checksums provided on the support portal
- Close any running instances of FortiClient
- Run the installer with administrator privileges
- Follow the on-screen prompts to complete the upgrade
- Restart the system if prompted
- Verify the installed version matches the target fixed version (7.2.13 or 7.4.5)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Forticlient
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-62676 — 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-2025-62676 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