basicsecurity.net
Proof, not just disclosure.
Threats / Fortinet / CVE-2024-23113
CVE-2024-23113 · EUVD no mirror located · GCVE no mirror located Verified 2026-06-22

Fortinet Multiple Products vulnerability

A format string vulnerability in multiple Fortinet products allows remote, unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code via specially crafted requests.

Verdict

Today item — known-exploited.

Format string flaws in Fortinet FortiOS, FortiPAM, FortiProxy, and FortiWeb enable remote code execution without authentication. Active exploitation in the wild increases risk to exposed instances.

CISA KEV Yes · 2024-10-093EPSS 0.61725 (verify live)4Exploit Public PoC5
01

Is it exploitable?

— the evidence, ranked above the score
Exploit available
Public proof-of-concept exploit code is cataloged for this vulnerability.We link the existence of the exploit; we do not host or redistribute payloads.
Reported exploitation
12 independent public reports of in-the-wild exploitation are cataloged.Distinct reporting sources (vendor, incident response, government); open them for the underlying claims.
Exploited in the wild
Listed in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog (added 2024-10-09).
CISA KEV ↗Confirmed
Probability (EPSS)
EPSS 0.61725 — modeled likelihood of exploitation activity.EPSS is a daily-changing model output — open the source for today's value.
Severity / affected
Affected: Fortinet, Multiple Products. Confirm exact fixed builds in the vendor advisory.
NVD ↗Reported
Weakness (CWE)
Mapped to CWE-134 Format String.CWE assignment from the public NVD record; the weakness class drives how the flaw is exploited.
NVD ↗Reported
02

Who’s exploiting it?

— attribution turns risk into urgency
Attribution not established

No confirmed (advisory-backed) threat-actor attribution is established for this record. Absence of a named actor is not absence of compromise — see Coverage & confidence.

03

Why it matters

— the attack path, told twice: adversary, then board
1

Front door — unauthenticated access narrative 1

Attacker
I craft a malicious request containing format string specifiers targeting the vulnerable Fortinet product.
Business
Attacker gains remote code execution capability on security infrastructure, bypassing authentication controls.
2

Keys to the kingdom — privilege/identity takeover narrative 2

Attacker
I execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the compromised Fortinet service process.
Business
Critical security appliances become fully compromised, enabling lateral movement into protected networks.
3

Lateral reach — past segmentation narrative 3

Attacker
I establish persistent access and exfiltrate sensitive data or configuration from the compromised system.
Business
Confidentiality and integrity of network security posture are compromised; incident response and forensics become necessary.
04

What to do

— defensible action
  • Remediate per the vendor advisory — confirm the fixed build for your version and verify exposure.1
Say it to the boardA vulnerability with this evidence profile is a defensible budget line, not a backlog ticket — fund the change against the proof above.
05

Coverage & confidence

— what we know, and what we don’t

Established (cited)

  • KEV listing (CISA)
  • EPSS probability (FIRST)
  • Public PoC available (VulnCheck)
  • 12 reported-exploitation source(s)
  • CWE weakness mapping (NVD)
  • Public exploit availability
  • Catalogued by fortinet (CNA)
  • Coverage gaps — stated, not hidden

  • No EUVD / GCVE mirror in feed — single-authority dependency for the identifier.
  • EPSS & exposure are time-varying; verify live at the source.
  • Threat-actor attribution not established from feed data — absence of a name is not absence of compromise.
  • No finder/reporter credit recorded in the public CVE entry — the work behind this find is unattributed.
  • Disclosure & credit2
    Catalogued by fortinetCNA
    Credited with finding itNo finder named in the public CVE record — the work behind this find is unattributed.