Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2024-46669 is a low-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Fortinet Fortios. Its CVSS base score is 3.5 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 46th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-42212
Vulnerability Data
An Integer Overflow or Wraparound vulnerability [CWE-190] in version 7.4.4 and below, version 7.2.10 and below; FortiSASE version 23.4.b FortiOS tenant IPsec IKE service may allow an authenticated attacker to crash the IPsec tunnel via crafted requests, resulting in potential…
more
denial of service.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
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 SDLC practices directly require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
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 can detect integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.