CVE-2025-62826
Fortinet Fortiproxy 7.2.0 – 7.6.5
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-62826 is a low-severity HTTP Request/Response Splitting (CWE-113) vulnerability in Fortinet Fortiproxy. Its CVSS base score is 3.1 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked at the 21th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-15 (Information Output Filtering) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-210466
Vulnerability Data
An Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Response Splitting') vulnerability [CWE-113] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.4, FortiOS 7.4 all versions, FortiOS 7.2 all versions, FortiProxy 7.6.0 through 7.6.4, FortiProxy 7.4 all versions, FortiProxy 7.2 all…
more
versions may allow an attacker able to intercept and modify a user's captive portal authentication request to inject arbitrary headers via crafted HTTP requests.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.4.2V4.1.3V1.3.6V4.2.3
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation stops unneutralized CR/LF characters from being accepted and later emitted in HTTP headers.
Output filtering can neutralize CRLF sequences before they reach HTTP response headers.
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 input sanitization and header handling that prevent CRLF injection.
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 CRLF injection flaws before deployment.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevents CRLF injection into HTTP headers.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including HTTP header manipulation.
Secure architecture principles reduce the likelihood of header-splitting vulnerabilities through proper component isolation.
Secure coding standards require neutralization of CRLF sequences before inclusion in HTTP headers.
Logging of HTTP traffic can record header-splitting attempts, aiding detection and forensics.