Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-54026 is a medium-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Fortinet Fortisandbox. Its CVSS base score is 4.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 35th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — 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-2024-54026 is an SQL injection vulnerability (CWE-89) due to improper neutralization of special elements in SQL commands. It affects Fortinet FortiSandbox versions 4.4.0 through 4.4.6, all versions of FortiSandbox 4.2, 4.0, 3.2, 3.1, 3.0, and FortiSandbox Cloud 24.1. The flaw allows attackers to execute unauthorized code or commands through specifically crafted HTTP requests. The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 4.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N), indicating low severity with limited confidentiality impact.
An attacker with low privileges (PR:L) can exploit this over the network (AV:N) with low complexity (AC:L) and no user interaction required. By sending crafted HTTP requests, the attacker can inject malicious SQL, potentially leading to unauthorized code or command execution, though the scoped impact is confined to low confidentiality per the CVSS vector.
Fortinet has published advisory FG-IR-24-353 at https://fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-24-353, which provides details on the vulnerability and recommended mitigations or patches.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-54250
Vulnerability Data
An improper neutralization of special elements used in an sql command ('sql injection') in Fortinet FortiSandbox 4.4.0 through 4.4.6, FortiSandbox 4.2 all versions, FortiSandbox 4.0 all versions, FortiSandbox 3.2 all versions, FortiSandbox 3.1 all versions, FortiSandbox 3.0 all versions, FortiSandbox…
more
Cloud 24.1 allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specifically crafted HTTP requests.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover SQLi flaws before deployment but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from reaching SQL query construction without neutralization.
Secure engineering principles require parameterized queries and input sanitization that structurally eliminate SQLi.
System monitoring can identify attempted SQLi exploitation via anomalous queries after the weakness exists.
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 target injection flaws during coding and review so largely prevent CWE-89 introduction, yet the single broad outcome leaves residual risk from incomplete neutralization techniques or missed edge cases.
Training raises developer awareness of SQLi risks and can reduce introduction likelihood (partial) but removes none of the actual coding flaw's risk by itself since technical neutralization is still required.
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.
The same secure-coding and static-analysis activities surface missing neutralization of SQL metacharacters before the system is accepted.
Language-specific secure coding rules, peer review and SAST together prevent the construction of SQL statements from untrusted data without proper parameterization or escaping.
created from the owner's anchor; an owner grade is a row and does not wait for an instrument (Mythos 2026-09-29T15:58Z).