CVE-2024-21762
Memory Safety in Fortinet Fortios 6.0.0 – 6.0.18
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-21762 is a critical-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Fortinet Fortios. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 0.3% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2024-21762 is an out-of-bounds write vulnerability affecting Fortinet FortiOS versions 7.4.0-7.4.2, 7.2.0-7.2.6, 7.0.0-7.0.13, 6.4.0-6.4.14, 6.2.0-6.2.15 and 6.0.0-6.0.17, as well as FortiProxy versions 7.4.0-7.4.2, 7.2.0-7.2.8, 7.0.0-7.0.14, 2.0.0-2.0.13, 1.2.0-1.2.13, 1.1.0-1.1.6 and 1.0.0-1.0.7. The flaw is tracked as CWE-787 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8.
Unauthenticated attackers can exploit the issue over the network by sending specially crafted requests, resulting in execution of unauthorized code or commands with full impact on confidentiality, integrity and availability.
Fortinet's advisory FG-IR-24-015 and the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog address the issue and list affected releases.
The vulnerability appears in the CISA KEV catalog, confirming observed in-the-wild exploitation, while its EPSS score remains elevated near 0.93.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-19376
Vulnerability Data
A out-of-bounds write in Fortinet FortiOS versions 7.4.0 through 7.4.2, 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, 7.0.0 through 7.0.13, 6.4.0 through 6.4.14, 6.2.0 through 6.2.15, 6.0.0 through 6.0.17, FortiProxy versions 7.4.0 through 7.4.2, 7.2.0 through 7.2.8, 7.0.0 through 7.0.14, 2.0.0 through 2.0.13, 1.2.0…
more
through 1.2.13, 1.1.0 through 1.1.6, 1.0.0 through 1.0.7 allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specifically crafted requests
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 09 February 2024
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure-development practices (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.