Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-22627 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Fortinet Fortiswitchaxfixed. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); 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 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-2026-22627 is a classic buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) affecting Fortinet FortiSwitchAXFixed versions 1.0.0 through 1.0.1. The flaw arises from a buffer copy without checking the size of input, which can be triggered via specially crafted packets. It has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating high severity due to its potential for confidentially, integrity, and availability impacts.
An unauthenticated attacker on the same adjacent network can exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted LLDP packet to the device. Successful exploitation may allow the attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands, potentially leading to full device compromise.
The Fortinet PSIRT advisory at https://fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-086 provides details on mitigation strategies and available patches. Security practitioners should consult this reference for version-specific remediation guidance.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-10513
Vulnerability Data
A buffer copy without checking size of input ('classic buffer overflow') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSwitchAXFixed 1.0.0 through 1.0.1 may allow an unauthenticated attacker within the same adjacent network to execute unauthorized code or commands on the device via sending a…
more
crafted LLDP packet.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.