Security Resilience

CVE-2024-23669

Access Control in Fortinet Fortiwebmanager 6.2.3 – 6.2.5

Published
05 June 2024
Modified
08 July 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 6.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0055 45th percentile
Risk Priority 51 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2024-23669 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Fortinet Fortiwebmanager. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 45th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

An improper authorization in Fortinet FortiWebManager 7.2.0, FortiWebManager 7.0.0 through 7.0.4, FortiWebManager 6.3.0, FortiWebManager 6.2.3 through 6.2.4, FortiWebManager 6.0.2 allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via HTTP requests or CLI.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-23668Same product: Fortinet Fortiwebmanager
CVE-2024-45328Same vendor: Fortinet
CVE-2025-25251Same vendor: Fortinet
CVE-2018-13382Same vendor: Fortinet
CVE-2025-54838Same vendor: Fortinet
CVE-2023-36556Same vendor: Fortinet
CVE-2024-55592Same vendor: Fortinet
CVE-2026-22872Shared CWE-20, CWE-863
CVE-2026-27607Shared CWE-20, CWE-863
CVE-2024-7004Shared CWE-20, CWE-863

Affected Assets

fortinet
fortiwebmanager
6.0.2, 6.3.0, 7.2.0 · 6.2.3 — 6.2.5 · 7.0.0 — 7.0.5

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

AC-3 directly requires correct enforcement of authorization decisions on every access request, structurally preventing incorrect checks.

AC-24 ensures access-control decisions are made and applied consistently, reducing the chance of an incorrect authorization result.

A reference monitor that is always invoked and tamper-proof forces every authorization decision through a verified, correct path.

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.

SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.

Least-privilege assignments shrink the set of authorizations that must be checked correctly, limiting exposure to flawed checks.

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.

blocks

Requiring consistency between access rights and classification plus formal approval steps ensures that the authorization logic correctly distinguishes between entities that should and should not be granted access.

blocks

A.5.18's provisioning, revocation, review and adjustment of access rights (incl. before role changes/termination, with segregation and owner approval) directly stops incorrect authorization decisions from being exploitable in the vast majority of cases; the bounded remainder is incorrectness inside the authorization logic itself (e.g. flawed conditional or missing check) rather than rights that were wrongly granted.

blocks

A.8.25 mandates security requirements, secure coding guidelines, checkpoints, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a slice of input validation defects but leaves the majority (incomplete enforcement, second-order inputs, parser differentials, post-validation canonicalization) unaddressed as in the SA-3 and A.8.28 anchors.

blocks

Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

blocks

Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.

prevents

Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.

Hardening callouts derived

DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.

  • No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-20, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.
  • No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-863, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.

References