LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2021-41028: A combination of a use of hard-coded cryptographic key vulnerability [CWE-321] in FortiClientEMS 7.0.1 and...

A combination of a use of hard-coded cryptographic key vulnerability [CWE-321] in FortiClientEMS 7.0.1 and below, 6.4.6 and below and an improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-297] in FortiClientWindows, FortiClientLinux and FortiClientMac 7.0.1 and below, 6.4.6 and below may allow an unauthenticated and network adjacent attacker to perform a man-in-the-middle attack between the EMS and the FCT via the telemetry protocol.

HighCVSS 8.2Not KEV-listedUpdated
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysishigh

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

This flaw affects older Fortinet FortiClient EMS and FortiClient endpoint software. A nearby unauthenticated attacker could intercept telemetry traffic between EMS and clients, potentially altering or disrupting management communications. The risk is high where affected versions remain deployed on reachable internal networks.

Executive priority

Treat this as a high-priority internal exposure issue, especially for environments relying on FortiClient EMS for endpoint management. Prioritize inventory and vendor-guided upgrades before assuming compensating controls are sufficient.

Technical view

CVE-2021-41028 combines hard-coded cryptographic key use in FortiClientEMS with improper certificate validation in FortiClient for Windows, Linux, and Mac. A network-adjacent unauthenticated attacker may perform man-in-the-middle attacks against the EMS-to-FCT telemetry protocol. CVSS 3.1 score is 8.2, with high integrity and availability impact.

Likely exposure

Exposure is most likely in organizations running FortiClientEMS 7.0.1 or below, 6.4.6 or below, and FortiClient endpoints at matching affected versions. Risk depends on whether an attacker can become network-adjacent to EMS-client telemetry traffic.

Exploitation context

The CVE record describes possible unauthenticated network-adjacent man-in-the-middle exploitation. The source bundle does not identify known active exploitation, and KEV status is false. Attack complexity is rated high, so practical exploitation likely requires favorable network positioning.

Researcher notes

Evidence supports a chained design/validation weakness in telemetry trust: CWE-321 in EMS and CWE-297 in FortiClient. Public details in the bundle are limited, so validation should stay version-based and configuration-focused without assuming additional affected products or exploit maturity.

Mitigation direction

  • Inventory FortiClientEMS and FortiClient endpoint versions across all platforms.
  • Check Fortinet advisory FG-IR-21-075 for vendor-supported upgrade guidance.
  • Upgrade affected EMS and endpoint versions beyond the listed vulnerable releases.
  • Restrict access to EMS-client telemetry paths to trusted network segments.
  • Monitor for unusual EMS-client telemetry failures or certificate validation anomalies.

Validation and detection

  • Confirm whether FortiClientEMS is version 7.0.1 or below, or 6.4.6 or below.
  • Confirm FortiClient Windows, Linux, and Mac versions against affected ranges.
  • Map network paths where clients communicate with EMS telemetry services.
  • Review whether untrusted users can access adjacent network segments.
  • Verify remediation status against Fortinet's published advisory.
Prepared
Confidence
medium
Sources
3

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2021-41028 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
High
CVSS
8.2 (3.1)
Known Exploited
No
Published

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:H/E:F/RL:U/RC:C

Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

1CVSS vectors
0Timeline events
0ADP providers
2Source links

CVSS vector scores

1 official score

We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.

ScoreVersionSeverityVectorExploitImpactSource
8.2CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:H/E:F/RL:U/RC:C1.66Primary CVE score

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 3.1 score

8.2High
CVSS 3.1 vector shape for CVE-2021-41028Attack VectorAttack ComplexityPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionScopeConfidentiality ImpactIntegrity ImpactAvailability Impact

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:H/E:F/RL:U/RC:C

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NoneRequired
Scope
ChangedUnchanged
Confidentiality Impact
HighLowNone
Integrity Impact
HighLowNone
Availability Impact
HighLowNone

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
FortinetFortinet FortiClientEMS, FortiClientWindows, FortiClientLinux, FortiClientMacFortiClientEMS 7.0.1 and below, 6.4.6 and below, FortiClientWindows, FortiClientLinux, FortiClientMac 7.0.1 and below, 6.4.6 and below.Listed
Weakness

CWE details

No CWE listed

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.