Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-71407. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-71407 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, EDR process telemetry, host service logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-71407 using CVSS 5.6, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

Workarounds are not confirmed from current sources. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

mediumRemote Code Execpublic exploit

CVE-2026-71407

CVE-2026-71407 — A Stack-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability [CWE-121] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.1 through 7.6.6 may allow an unauthenticated…

Q: What is CVE-2026-71407?

CVE-2026-71407 is A Stack-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability [CWE-121] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.1 through 7.6.6 may allow an unauthenticated…. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Remote Code Exec mapped to CWE-121 CWE-121.

A Stack-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability [CWE-121] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.1 through 7.6.6 may allow an unauthenticated attacker who can bypass stack protection and ASLR to execute arbitrary code or commands in the context of the WAD daemon via crafted sockets, only if the explicit proxy is configured with Kerberos authentication and SOCKS enabled.

Published Aug 12, 2026Updated Aug 12, 2026Sources: NVD, Fortinet (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

Fortinet

14 products listed

CVSS base

5.6

medium · 2 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade to FortiOS version 8.0.0 or above Upgrade to FortiOS version 7.6.7 or above

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
Fortinet	FortiOS	7.6.1 to <= 7.6.6	Vulnerable
Fortinet	FortiPAM	1.8.0 to <= 1.8.4	Vulnerable
Fortinet	FortiPAM	1.7.0 to <= 1.7.2	Vulnerable
Fortinet	FortiPAM	1.6.0 to <= 1.6.2	Vulnerable
Fortinet	FortiPAM	1.5.0 to <= 1.5.1	Vulnerable
Fortinet	FortiPAM	1.4.0 to <= 1.4.3	Vulnerable
Fortinet	FortiPAM	1.3.0 to <= 1.3.1	Vulnerable
Fortinet	FortiPAM	1.2.0	Vulnerable
Fortinet	FortiPAM	1.1.0 to <= 1.1.2	Vulnerable
Fortinet	FortiPAM	1.0.0 to <= 1.0.3	Vulnerable
Fortinet	FortiProxy	7.6.0 to <= 7.6.4	Vulnerable
Fortinet	FortiProxy	7.4.0 to <= 7.4.11	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

Low

Confidentiality

Low

Integrity

Low

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

High

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
5.6	CVSS 3.1	medium	2.2	3.4	Fortinet (CNA)
5.1	CVSS 3.1	medium	—	—	Fortinet (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-121 · Stack-based Buffer Overflow

Modify Memory
DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)
DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory)

Mitigation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that automatically provide a protection mechanism that mitigates or eliminates buffer overflows. For example, certain compilers and extensions provide automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are built into the compiled code. Examples include the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice.

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-121

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-242 · Code InjectionCAPEC-35 · Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable FortiOS, FortiPAM, FortiProxy.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPSEDR process telemetryhost service logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 5.6 (AV:N)
Aug 12, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Aug 12, 2026 · NVD

References

1 on the record

fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-161
Vendor Advisory, Mitre

Elsewhere on this site

Fortinetevery CVE for this vendor
Remote Code Execsame class
CWE-121other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-71407 is A Stack-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability [CWE-121] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.1 through 7.6.6 may allow an unauthenticated…, a medium vulnerability affecting FortiOS, FortiPAM, FortiProxy from Fortinet. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-71407. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 5.6 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.