Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-22828 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Fortinet Fortianalyzer Cloud. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 44% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2026-22828 is a heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-122) affecting Fortinet FortiAnalyzer Cloud versions 7.6.2 through 7.6.4 and FortiManager Cloud versions 7.6.2 through 7.6.4. The flaw arises from improper handling of specifically crafted requests, potentially leading to remote code execution. It has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.1 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), reflecting high impact but elevated attack complexity.
A remote unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability over the network by sending tailored requests to affected cloud instances. Successful exploitation may enable arbitrary code or command execution, compromising confidentiality, integrity, and availability. However, preparation demands significant effort due to protections like ASLR and network segmentation.
The Fortinet advisory FG-IR-26-121 provides details on mitigation, including recommended patches and workarounds; security practitioners should consult https://fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-121 for version-specific remediation guidance.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-22327
Vulnerability Data
A heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.6.2 through 7.6.4, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.2 through 7.6.4 may allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code or commands via specifically crafted requests. Successful exploitation would require a large amount…
more
of effort in preparation because of ASLR and network segmentation
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
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 require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
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 heap overflows before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that reduce the likelihood of introducing heap overflows.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory APIs that mitigate heap overflows.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safety and input-validation controls that address heap overflows.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.
Change management ensures controlled deployment of fixes for discovered heap-overflow vulnerabilities.