CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2025-22258NVD status: Analyzed

FortiPAM: Heap-based Buffer Overflow

CVE-2025-22258 is a high-severity heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in FortiPAM from Fortinet, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.2 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with administrator privileges, without any action from a user. Affected FortiPAM versions: 1.5.0; 1.4.0 through 1.4.2; 1.3.0 through 1.3.1, and others listed below. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.56% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Check which version of FortiPAM you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
  2. Read the advisory on fortiguard.fortinet.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
FortinetFortiPAM1.5.0; 1.4.0 through 1.4.2; 1.3.0 through 1.3.1; 1.2.0; 1.1.0 through 1.1.2; 1.0.0 through 1.0.3Not stated
FortinetFortiOS7.6.0 through 7.6.2; 7.4.0 through 7.4.6; 7.2.0 through 7.2.10; 7.0.2 through 7.0.16Not stated
FortinetFortiSRA1.5.0; 1.4.0 through 1.4.2Not stated
FortinetFortiProxy7.6.0 through 7.6.1; 7.4.0 through 7.4.7Not stated
FortinetFortiSwitchManager7.2.1 through 7.2.5Not stated

Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Privileges required
HighAdministrator-level access is required first.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
Confidentiality
HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
Integrity
HighData or code can be modified at will.
Availability
HighThe component can be taken down completely.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.

Scoring systemScoreSeverityScored by
CVSS 3.16.5MediumCNA (fortinet.com)
CVSS 3.17.2HighNVD

Official description

A heap-based buffer overflow in Fortinet FortiSRA 1.5.0, 1.4.0 through 1.4.2, FortiPAM 1.5.0, 1.4.0 through 1.4.2, 1.3.0 through 1.3.1, 1.2.0, 1.1.0 through 1.1.2, 1.0.0 through 1.0.3, FortiProxy 7.6.0 through 7.6.1, 7.4.0 through 7.4.7, FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.2, 7.4.0 through 7.4.6, 7.2.0 through 7.2.10, 7.0.2 through 7.0.16, FortiSwitchManager 7.2.1 through 7.2.5 allows attackers to escalate their privilege via specially crafted http requests.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Heap-based Buffer Overflow

The product writes past the end of a buffer that was allocated on the heap.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Pre-design: Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
  • Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
  • Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.

More Heap-based Buffer Overflow vulnerabilities (CWE-122)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Other vulnerabilities in FortiPAM

All FortiPAM vulnerabilities

Recent Heap-based Buffer Overflow vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.