FortiproxyApplication · Fortinet
CVE-2026-59839
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 improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('path traversal') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.6, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.9, FortiOS 7.2 all versions, FortiOS 7.0 all versions, FortiOS 6.4 all versions, FortiPAM 1.8.0, FortiPAM 1.7.0 through 1.7.2, FortiPAM 1.6 all versions, FortiPAM 1.5 all versions, FortiPAM 1.4 all versions, FortiPAM 1.3 all versions, FortiPAM 1.2 all versions, FortiPAM 1.1 all versions, FortiPAM 1.0 all versions, FortiProxy 7.6.0 through 7.6.5, FortiProxy 7.4 through 7.4.13, FortiProxy 7.2 all versions, FortiProxy 7.0 all versions may allow attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via <insert attack vector here>
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 path traversal vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS, FortiPAM, and FortiProxy allows attackers to access files outside the restricted directory through specially crafted directory traversal sequences in HTTP requests, potentially leading to unauthorized code execution or command execution.
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
FortiproxyApplication
>= 7.0.0, < 7.4.14>= 7.6.0, < 7.6.6
FortiosOperating system
>= 6.4.0, < 7.4.10>= 7.6.0, < 7.6.7
FortipamOperating system
>= 1.0.0, < 1.7.3= 1.8.0CVSS 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
- Physical
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:H/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.
-
Identify product and versionRun 'get system status' or 'get system info' on the Fortinet device CLI to retrieve the product name and firmware versionAffected if The product is FortiOS, FortiPAM, or FortiProxy and the version falls within the affected ranges: FortiProxy >= 7.0.0 to < 7.4.14 or >= 7.6.0 to < 7.6.6; FortiOS >= 6.4.0 to < 7.4.10 or >= 7.6.0 to < 7.6.7; FortiPAM >= 1.0.0 to < 1.7.3 or version 1.8.0
-
Verify network exposure of management interfaceReview firewall policies and interface IP assignments using 'get firewall policy' and 'diagnose ip address list' to determine if management ports are exposed to untrusted networksAffected if Management interface (HTTP/HTTPS) is reachable from external or untrusted networks rather than only from trusted management VLANs
If the device runs an affected FortiOS, FortiPAM, or FortiProxy version AND has its HTTP management interface exposed to network attackers, the environment is vulnerable to this path traversal flaw.
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 · scoped1.7.37.4.107.4.14
Apply the vendor-supplied patches for the specific FortiOS/FortiPAM/FortiProxy versions. If patches are unavailable, restrict network access to management interfaces and implement web application firewall rules to block directory traversal patterns (../, ..\).
FortiOS: 7.4.10+ or 7.6.7+; FortiProxy: 7.4.14+ or 7.6.6+; FortiPAM: 1.7.3+ or 1.8.1+
- Identify the exact Fortinet product (FortiOS, FortiProxy, or FortiPAM) and current version in your environment
- For FortiOS 7.4.x: Upgrade to version 7.4.10 or later
- For FortiOS 7.6.x: Upgrade to version 7.6.7 or later
- For FortiProxy 7.4.x: Upgrade to version 7.4.14 or later
- For FortiProxy 7.6.x: Upgrade to version 7.6.6 or later
- For FortiPAM 1.0.x through 1.7.x: Upgrade to version 1.7.3 or later
- For FortiPAM 1.8.0: Upgrade to version 1.8.1 or later
- After upgrade, verify the version matches the fixed releases
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Fortiproxy
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-59839 — 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-2026-59839 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