CVE-2026-104286

Actively exploited (CISA KEV) Critical 9.8 CVSS 3.1

Description

An improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('path traversal') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiMail 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiMail 7.6.0 through 7.6.6, FortiMail 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiMail 7.2.0 through 7.2.9 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to write arbitrary files on the underlying system via crafted HTTP or HTTPS requests.

Description as published by the source, in English.

Key facts

Published: 2026-10-01
Last modified: 2026-10-05
Assigned by: fortinet
CVSS vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H/E:P/RL:O/RC:C
Scored by: CVE Program
Fix available: Not registered in the sources

Actively exploited

CISA added this vulnerability to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on 2026-10-01, with a remediation deadline of 2026-10-04 for US federal agencies.

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.

Affected products

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
Fortinet	FortiMail	8.0.0	Affected
Fortinet	FortiMail	≥ 7.0.0, ≤ 7.0.9	Affected
Fortinet	FortiMail	≥ 7.2.0, ≤ 7.2.9	Affected
Fortinet	FortiMail	≥ 7.4.0, ≤ 7.4.6	Affected
Fortinet	FortiMail	≥ 7.6.0, ≤ 7.6.5	Affected

Weakness type

CWE-158: Improper Neutralization of Null Byte or NUL Character
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes NUL characters or null bytes when they are sent to a downstream component.
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special ele…

References

https://fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-175

Related at Berigo

Articles

Approved partners get access to a model that finds unknown vulnerabilities Same product 2026-08-12
OpenAI is expanding Daybreak with two access levels and releasing GPT-5.6-Cyber, a model trained for tasks such as finding zero-day vulnerabilities a…
Official installers for QuickFox VPN carried a backdoor for nearly a year Same product 2026-08-07
Fortinet has found that the QuickFox VPN installers spread a backdoor for nearly a year. The backdoor was only installed on machines that looked like…
FortiBleed: over 30,000 valid Fortinet credentials found in attacker hands Same product 2026-06-18
SOCRadar has found 30,791 verified working credentials for Fortinet firewalls and VPN gateways across 194 countries.
Critical FortiClient EMS flaw exploited before the advisory landed Same product 2026-04-04
CVE-2026-35616 enables unauthenticated code execution in FortiClient EMS 7.4.5 and 7.4.6. Fortinet has issued a hotfix to install now.

Does this affect you?

A vulnerability matters only if you run the product, in an affected version, somewhere an attacker can reach.

Check your asset list Browse all vulnerabilities

Sources and freshness

CVE

What it is: A reference number naming one specific vulnerability, for example CVE-2024-9474.
What it tells you: Which vulnerability we are talking about, and in which product.
What it does NOT tell you: Nothing about how serious it is, whether anyone is exploiting it, or whether it concerns you.
Why it matters: Without a shared number, vendor, authority and tooling cannot discuss the same flaw.
Used with the others: The number is the key. NVD, KEV and EPSS all describe the same CVE.

NVD CWE CISA KEV EPSS

How to read this together

No single value should be used on its own. A high CVSS score does not mean a vulnerability is being exploited, and a low one does not mean it is harmless. The four sources answer four different questions.

CVE names the specific vulnerability.
NVD adds severity and technical detail about it.
CWE describes the type of mistake behind it.
CISA KEV shows that it is already being exploited.
EPSS estimates how likely exploitation is soon.

The order that decides what is urgent

Do you actually have the product?
Is the version you run affected?
Is it listed in CISA KEV?
Does it have a high EPSS score?
Is the system reachable from the internet or from others?
How important is the system to the business?
Are there compensating controls already in place?

The first two questions are not about the vulnerability at all. They are about you, and they remove most of the list before you start.

A short example

Fix this week

CVSS 6,5 (medium)

In CISA KEV: yes
EPSS: 94 per cent
A firewall facing the internet

Can be scheduled

CVSS 9,8 (critical)

In CISA KEV: no
EPSS: 0,04 per cent
A test server with no internet access

Sorted by CVSS alone, the one on the right comes first. It is the more serious flaw in theory. But the one on the left is being used against real organisations right now, and it sits where an attacker can reach it. That is the one to fix first.

The critical one still has to be fixed. It just does not have to be fixed today.

This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD. CVE and the CVE logo are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation; CVE records are used under the CVE Terms of Use. CWE is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation, used per the CWE Terms of Use. KEV data from CISA (CC0). Exploitation probability from EPSS, a FIRST.org project. Open-source package data from OSV and the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

Scores and vectors are shown as published by the sources. The ordering of results is Berigo's own editorial assessment, described on the search page, and is not NVD data. An empty result never means a system is safe.