CVE-2025-25249
A heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiOS 7.0.0…
Critical
Known exploited
- Severity
- 9.8 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 3.74%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 89.86% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Sep 9, 2026
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Fortinet Multiple Products Heap-based Buffer Overflow Vulnerability (Fortinet Multiple Products). Required action: Apply mitigations in accordance with vendor instructions, ensuring compliance with CISA’s BOD 26-04 Prioritizing Security Updates Based on Risk (see URL in Notes) guidance and CISA’s “Forensics Triage Requirements” (see URL in Notes). Follow applicable BOD 26-04 guidance for cloud services or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Stakeholders are responsible for evaluating each asset's internet exposure and ensuring adherence to BOD 26-04 patching guidelines. Due for U.S. federal agencies by Sep 12, 2026.
Description
A heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiOS 7.0.0 through 7.0.17, FortiOS 6.4 all versions, FortiSwitchManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, FortiSwitchManager 7.0.0 through 7.0.5 allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specially crafted packets
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-122: Heap-based Buffer Overflow
A heap overflow condition is a buffer overflow, where the buffer that can be overwritten is allocated in the heap portion of memory, generally meaning that the buffer was allocated using a routine such as malloc().
How to prevent it
- Pre-design: Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
- Architecture and Design: Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
- Operation, Build and Compilation: 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 [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
- Operation, Build and Compilation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking. For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
- Implementation: Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
- Implementation: Do not use dangerous functions such as gets. Look for their safe equivalent, which checks for the boundary.
- Operation: Use OS-level preventative functionality. This is not a complete solution, but it provides some defense in depth.
CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Operation, Build and Compilation: 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 [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
- Implementation: Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory: Double check that the buffer is as large as specified. When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string. Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer in a loop and make sure there is no danger of writing past the allocated space. If necessary, truncate all input strings to a reasonable length before passing them to the copy and concatenation functions.
- Operation, Build and Compilation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking. For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
- Operation: Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment. For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
- Implementation: Replace unbounded copy functions with analogous functions that support length arguments, such as strcpy with strncpy. Create these if they are not available.
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
- Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-8g5g-8vmr-9782 Pillow: Heap buffer overflow in ImagingJpegDecode | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-122 |
| GHSA-5x8w-8jj5-q52h Pillow: Heap buffer overflow in FlashPix (FPX) JPEG decoding leads to code execution | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-122 |
| GHSA-462x-pgg6-55fp Pillow tiled-TIFF decoder reads past tile buffer in copy4 (Unpack.c:1290) | High | Same weakness, CWE-122 |
| GHSA-332p-7hrc-92wf Pillow: Heap buffer overflow in _tiffWriteProc when saving TIFF to BytesIO | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-122 |
| CVE-2026-94127 When a BIG-IP APM access policy and an OAuth profile are configured on a virtual server, specific malicious traffic can lead to remote code execution (RCE). | Critical Known exploited | Same weakness, CWE-122 |
| GHSA-rgj7-g3m4-5g8c sharp: Vulnerabilities in libheif: GHSA-g89c-p67h-r497 and GHSA-2jg2-4ch7-h545 | High | Same weakness, CWE-122 |
| CVE-2026-85880 Heap-based buffer overflow in Windows ALPC allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally. | High Known exploited | Same weakness, CWE-122 |
| GHSA-jqhp-238x-qhgf Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-62886 – .NET Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability | High | Same weakness, CWE-122 |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor