Fortinet FortiWLM
Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it; Cloudflare blocks by default. Our CRS test: blocked.
A improper neutralization of special elements used in an os command ('os command injection') in Fortinet FortiWLM version 8.6.0 through 8.6.5 and 8.5.0 through 8.5.4 allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specifically… More
A improper neutralization of special elements used in an os command ('os command injection') in Fortinet FortiWLM version 8.6.0 through 8.6.5 and 8.5.0 through 8.5.4 allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specifically crafted http get request parameters.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.1Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.Unchanged
- Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.High
- Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.High
- Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H/E:F/RL:X/RC:XAlso in the vector: Exploit code maturity: Functional
CISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.
Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.
A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.
Public exploits
1 found- NucleiCVE-2023-34993.yamldetection template, replayed in our lab
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2023-10-10CVE publishedCVE List
- 2025-01-13Cloudflare ships a ruleFortiWLM - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2023-48782, CVE:CVE-2023-34993, CVE:CVE-2023-34990
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked itparanoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked itparanoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
First rule 2025-01-13, 461 days after the CVE was published.
FortiWLM - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2023-48782, CVE:CVE-2023-34993, CVE:CVE-2023-34990. Previous action: Log. New action: Block. New Detection
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.