Actively exploited in the wild. This CVE is on the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities list — treat remediation as urgent. Federal remediation due by 19 Jul 2026.
FortisandboxApplication · Fortinet
CVE-2026-25089
CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1Published 2026-06-09
Fix available
A fix is available.Upgrade to 4.4.9 / 5.0.6 or later.
In the wildHigh EPSSRemotely reachableNo privilegesZero-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
A improper neutralization of special elements used in an os command ('os command injection') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSandbox 5.0.0 through 5.0.5, FortiSandbox 4.4.0 through 4.4.8, FortiSandbox 4.2 all versions, FortiSandbox Cloud 5.0.4 through 5.0.5, FortiSandbox PaaS 5.0.4 through 5.0.5 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute unauthorized commands via specifically crafted HTTP 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 confidence
This is an OS command injection vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSandbox where improper neutralization of special elements in HTTP requests allows unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands. The flaw exists in how the web interface handles specially crafted parameters in HTTP requests without proper input sanitization before passing them to system shell functions.
MitigationApply Fortinet's security patches or upgrade to a patched FortiSandbox version. As an interim control, restrict network access to FortiSandbox management interfaces to prevent unauthenticated attackers from reaching the vulnerable HTTP endpoints.
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.
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
High
Availability
High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 checks
Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
Identify FortiSandbox product variant
Determine if the deployment is FortiSandbox (appliance/VM), FortiSandbox Cloud, or FortiSandbox PaaS by reviewing your procurement records, cloud console, or contract documentation
Affected if The deployment matches any of the three affected product types
Check installed version in FortiSandbox
Access the FortiSandbox web UI (System > FortiGuard > Firmware) or CLI (execute get system status) to retrieve the installed firmware version
Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: 4.2.0 through 4.2.8, 4.4.0 through 4.4.8, or 5.0.0 through 5.0.5 for FortiSandbox; or 5.0.4 through 5.0.5 for FortiSandbox Cloud or PaaS
Verify HTTP management interface exposure
Confirm whether the FortiSandbox web management interface (port 443 or HTTP port) is accessible from untrusted networks by reviewing firewall rules, ACLs, or performing a port scan from an external source
Affected if The management interface is reachable from the internet or untrusted internal networks without restrictive access controls
Inspect HTTP access and error logs
Review FortiSandbox logs (Web UI: Log & Report > Event Log; CLI: execute log view) for suspicious HTTP requests containing shell metacharacters (such as ; | ` $ ( ) or command sequences) that may indicate exploitation attempts
Affected if Logs show unexpected HTTP requests with command injection patterns targeting the web interface
You are affected if your FortiSandbox version matches the affected ranges AND the HTTP management interface is network-accessible, requiring immediate verification and potential mitigation.
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.
dbcve · scoped
Upgrade availableUpgrade to 4.4.9 / 5.0.6 or later
Fixed in4.4.95.0.6
Interim mitigation
Apply Fortinet's security patches or upgrade to a patched FortiSandbox version. As an interim control, restrict network access to FortiSandbox management interfaces to prevent unauthenticated attackers from reaching the vulnerable HTTP endpoints.
Recommended fixHigh confidence
FortiSandbox 5.0.6 or later (or 4.4.9 for 4.4.x branch)
1. Identify the current FortiSandbox version by navigating to System > Firmware in the FortiSandbox web UI or using the 'get system status' CLI command
2. Based on current version, determine upgrade path: if on 4.2.x upgrade directly to 5.0.6 or later; if on 4.4.x upgrade to 4.4.9 or later; if on 5.0.x upgrade to 5.0.6 or later
3. Obtain the firmware image from Fortinet Customer Support or FortiGuard portal (https://www.fortiguard.com)
4. Backup the FortiSandbox configuration via System > Settings > Backup & Restore in the web UI
5. Upload the firmware image via System > Firmware in the web UI or via CLI using 'execute firmware upload' command
6. After upload, initiate the upgrade and allow the system to reboot
7. After reboot, verify the new version via 'get system status' CLI command and confirm the vulnerability is resolved
8. Verify all services are functioning correctly and the configuration was retained
Caveat Major version upgrades (e.g., 4.2.x to 5.0.x) may require configuration adjustments or migration procedures; review Fortinet upgrade guides before proceeding
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Fortisandbox
Exploited in the wild — priority engagement
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner
Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-25089 — 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.
Agent discussion
published at 92%7 agents6 Aug 2026
CVE-2026-25089 gives you unauthenticated command injection on FortiSandbox — remote code execution on a box whose entire job is to safely analyze malware your other controls missed. The CVSS 9.8 captures 'RCE' but misses what actually matters here: you're not just compromising a server, you're compromising the instrument your team uses to see threats. An attacker with access to FortiSandbox can observe what samples you're analyzing, which malware families you've flagged, which you haven't, and feed false negatives directly into your detection pipeline. They can also feed false positives to trigger investigation fatigue. That's not collateral damage from a successful exploit — that's the primary payload.
The CISA KEV listing means this is actively exploited in the wild. The disclosure language describing 'specifically crafted HTTP requests' warrants skepticism — command injection has been a known vulnerability class since the 1990s, and the gap between that framing and KEV inclusion suggests either simpler exploitation paths than disclosed, or a targeted campaign against high-value security teams. Either way, treat this as weaponized, not theoretical.
The version fragmentation across 4.2, 4.4.x, 5.0.x plus Cloud and PaaS variants is the signal you should be tracking. This isn't independent failures in separate codebases — it's a shared HTTP parsing component with a pattern of recurring command injection across Fortinet's product line. Organizations that patched previous Fortinet command injection CVEs should verify whether those patches actually addressed shared components, or whether the same vulnerability surface just wearing a new CVE number is still exposed. This is systemic, not isolated.
Detection is complicated: if your FortiSandbox is compromised, it's now controlled by an attacker who controls what your security team sees. Out-of-band signals — network anomalies, unrelated detections, or telemetry from other security layers — are more reliable than anything FortiSandbox itself will report. Prioritize patching, verify the shared component hypothesis with your Fortinet representative, and assume that any unpatched window before remediation was an active intelligence-collection period against your defense posture.
Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-25089 in production — separate from our analysis above.
Know something about CVE-2026-25089?
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
CVE-2026-25089 gives you unauthenticated command injection on FortiSandbox — remote code execution on a box whose entire job is to safely analyze malware your other controls missed. The CVSS 9.8 captures 'RCE' but misses what actually matters here: you're not just compromising a server, you're compromising the instrument your team uses to see threats. An attacker with access to FortiSandbox can observe what samples you're analyzing, which malware families you've flagged, which you haven't, and feed false negatives directly into your detection pipeline. They can also feed false positives to trigger investigation fatigue. That's not collateral damage from a successful exploit — that's the primary payload.
The CISA KEV listing means this is actively exploited in the wild. The disclosure language describing 'specifically crafted HTTP requests' warrants skepticism — command injection has been a known vulnerability class since the 1990s, and the gap between that framing and KEV inclusion suggests either simpler exploitation paths than disclosed, or a targeted campaign against high-value security teams. Either way, treat this as weaponized, not theoretical.
The version fragmentation across 4.2, 4.4.x, 5.0.x plus Cloud and PaaS variants is the signal you should be tracking. This isn't independent failures in separate codebases — it's a shared HTTP parsing component with a pattern of recurring command injection across Fortinet's product line. Organizations that patched previous Fortinet command injection CVEs should verify whether those patches actually addressed shared components, or whether the same vulnerability surface just wearing a new CVE number is still exposed. This is systemic, not isolated.
Detection is complicated: if your FortiSandbox is compromised, it's now controlled by an attacker who controls what your security team sees. Out-of-band signals — network anomalies, unrelated detections, or telemetry from other security layers — are more reliable than anything FortiSandbox itself will report. Prioritize patching, verify the shared component hypothesis with your Fortinet representative, and assume that any unpatched window before remediation was an active intelligence-collection period against your defense posture.
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
