CVE-2026-70465
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 buffer copy without checking size of input ('classic buffer overflow') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiClientWindows 7.4.0 through 7.4.3, FortiClientWindows 7.2.0 through 7.2.11 may allow an unauthenticated attacker in a position to alter or craft DNS responses to the targeted host to execute arbitrary code via malicious packets.
In the news
Third-party coverageSurfaced from public web coverage — external links open in a new tab.
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 analysisA fixed-size buffer is filled without checking the length of the incoming data, so it overflows into neighbouring memory. This is the classic overflow attackers use to overwrite return addresses and hijack execution. The fix is strict length checks and safe, bounded string and memory functions.
General guidance for the classic buffer overflow class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 · scopedFortiClientWindows 7.4.4 or later / FortiClientWindows 7.2.12 or later
- 1. Verify current FortiClientWindows version by opening FortiClient and navigating to Help > About
- 2. For FortiClientWindows 7.4.x users: Upgrade to version 7.4.4 or later
- 3. For FortiClientWindows 7.2.x users: Upgrade to version 7.2.12 or later
- 4. Download the updated installer from the Fortinet Customer Support Portal (https://support.fortinet.com)
- 5. Close FortiClient and any related processes before running the installer
- 6. Run the installer with administrator privileges
- 7. After installation, verify the version in Help > About to confirm the update was successful
- 8. Ensure DNS response filtering is enabled in FortiClient settings for additional protection
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
There is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.
Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.
We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $8,000. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.
Scope it with usSee what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-70465 — 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-2026-70465 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