FortiwebApplication · Fortinet
CVE-2025-64471
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 · uneditedA use of password hash instead of password for authentication vulnerability [CWE-836] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiWeb 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiWeb 7.6.0 through 7.6.5, FortiWeb 7.4.0 through 7.4.10, FortiWeb 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiWeb 7.0.0 through 7.0.11 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to use the hash in place of the password to authenticate via crafted HTTP/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 confidenceFortiWeb improper authentication allows an unauthenticated attacker to use a password hash in place of the actual password to authenticate via crafted HTTP/HTTPS requests, effectively bypassing authentication entirely.
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
FortiwebApplication
>= 7.0.0, <= 7.0.11>= 7.2.0, <= 7.2.11>= 7.4.0, <= 7.4.10>= 7.6.0, <= 7.6.4>= 8.0.0, <= 8.0.1CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check FortiWeb versionRun the following CLI command: get system status | grep VersionAffected if The version number falls within these ranges: 7.0.0-7.0.11, 7.2.0-7.2.11, 7.4.0-7.4.10, 7.6.0-7.6.4, or 8.0.0-8.0.1
-
Verify admin interface exposureCheck the network configuration to determine if the FortiWeb web UI (port 443/HTTPS) is accessible from untrusted networks. Use: show system interface <interface_name> | grep -A 5 http or review the administrative access settings in the web UI under Network > InterfacesAffected if The admin GUI is open to untrusted/internal networks or the internet
-
Review authentication logs for hash-like login attemptsIn the web UI, go to Log & Report > Log Access > Event or run: execute log filter category 2 then execute log view in the CLI. Look for login attempts where the password field contains alphanumeric strings of length 32 or 40 (MD5 or SHA1 hash patterns)Affected if Any authentication logs show login attempts using hash-like strings instead of plaintext passwords
-
Check for failed authentication anomaliesReview authentication event logs for unusual patterns such as: high volume of failed logins, authentication attempts from multiple source IPs, or successful logins that did not follow normal credential submission patternsAffected if Authentication logs reveal anomalies inconsistent with normal admin login behavior
You are affected if your FortiWeb version is within the affected ranges AND the admin interface is accessible from an untrusted network, or if you observe login attempts using hash-like strings in your authentication logs.
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 · scopedApply Fortinet's patches for the affected versions (8.0.2+, 7.6.6+, 7.4.11+, 7.2.12+, 7.0.12+) or upgrade to a fixed release. If patches are unavailable, implement WAF rules to block authentication attempts using hash-like patterns.
7.0.12+ / 7.2.12+ / 7.4.11+ / 7.6.5+ / 8.0.2+ (latest available in each branch recommended)
- 1. Identify the currently installed FortiWeb version from the web UI (System > Status) or CLI (get system status)
- 2. Based on your current major version line, plan upgrade to the following minimum fixed versions: For 7.0.x upgrade to 7.0.12 or later; For 7.2.x upgrade to 7.2.12 or later; For 7.4.x upgrade to 7.4.11 or later; For 7.6.x upgrade to 7.6.5 or later; For 8.0.x upgrade to 8.0.2 or later
- 3. Before upgrading, backup the FortiWeb configuration from CLI (execute backup config) or web UI
- 4. Download the firmware upgrade from Fortinet Customer Support portal or FortiGuard
- 5. Upload and install the new firmware through the web UI (System > Firmware > Upgrade) or CLI (execute firmware upgrade)
- 6. After upgrade, verify the new version is installed and confirm all services are operational
- 7. Test authentication functionality to confirm the vulnerability is remediated
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Fortiweb
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-64471 — 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-2025-64471 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