CVE-2021-42761
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
A condition for session fixation vulnerability [CWE-384] in the session management of FortiWeb versions 6.4 all versions, 6.3.0 through 6.3.16, 6.2.0…
rank 31 = 0 + 25 + 0 + 6 + 0
rank@v1 · scheduled
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.01465 · without this subject the record ranks 31
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 9.8, from NVD · without this subject the record ranks 6
It is getting worse, not staying still
FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed
no persisting rise in 365 days · without this subject the record ranks 31
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
6 products in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 25
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 31
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
No weakness class or product neighbourhood is held for this record, so this index cannot name anywhere to check next. That is an absence in the record, not a finding about the software.
Sources disagree here.
Both shown, dated. We don't pick winners. disagreement-rules@v1
Running Fortinet FortiWeb? Check your version
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Set up a watchlist (free with an account: one stack of three products)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
Or open an investigation: an incident or a near miss on this CVE, kept with its evidence where anyone in your organisation can find it.
Choose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Show full BOD 26-04 deadline
CISA has not scored it, so the directive's own defaults apply: automatable no, technical impact total. Calendar days from the KEV listing or from when you find it on a system, whichever is first. Federal agencies are bound from 7 Dec 2026, and contracts often carry it to suppliers. The directive and its table
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
Affected & Fixed Versions as published
Show all 6 published ranges
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
$73,100 = $4.99M incident cost x 1 exposure x 0.01465 likelihood
udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run
$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.
Attack path
What it is stated by the CNA
A condition for session fixation vulnerability [CWE-384] in the session management of FortiWeb versions 6.4 all versions, 6.3.0 through 6.3.16, 6.2.0 through 6.2.6, 6.1.0 through 6.1.2, 6.0.0 through 6.0.7, 5.9.0 through 5.9.1 may allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to infer the session identifier of other users and possibly usurp their session. receipt
NVD's analysis a second authority
- severity
- 9.8 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- weakness
- CWE-384
- affected versions
- fortinet fortiweb >= 5.6.0 < 5.9.2; fortinet fortiweb >= 6.0.0 < 6.0.8; fortinet fortiweb >= 6.1.0 < 6.1.3; and 3 more, listed in full below
- also scored by
- psirt@fortinet.com 9 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
The CNA scored it 8.5 and NVD 9.8. Both are shown because both were published; we do not pick one.
check it yourself fortiguard.com receipt
Movement the material steps
Show all 23 observations
23 observations held. A highlighted step crossed a promotion threshold. A step marked with a scoring model moved because the instrument was replaced, not because the vulnerability changed. receipt
The full biography
The record had been public for 3 years, 3 months when this index was last written.
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
None. No alias set, and nothing in the corpus cites this identifier or shares its product family within 60 days.
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2021-42761.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.