A Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information vulnerability [CWE-312] in FortiClientWindows 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, 7.0.0 through 7.0.13 and FortiClientLinux 7.4.0 through 7.4.2, 7.2.0 through 7.2.7, 7.0.0 through 7.0.13 may permit a local authenticated user to retrieve VPN password via memory dump, due to JavaScript's garbage collector
A authentication bypass using an alternate path or channel in Fortinet FortiClientWindows version 7.4.0, versions 7.2.4 through 7.2.0, versions 7.0.12 through 7.0.0, and 6.4.10 through 6.4.0 allows low privilege attacker to execute arbitrary code with high privilege via spoofed named pipe messages.
An improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability [CWE-347] in FortiClient MacOS version 7.4.0, version 7.2.4 and below, version 7.0.10 and below, version 6.4.10 and below may allow a local authenticated attacker to swap the installer with a malicious package via a race condition during the installation process.
A untrusted search path in Fortinet FortiClientWindows versions 7.4.0, versions 7.2.4 through 7.2.0, versions 7.0.12 through 7.0.0 allows an attacker to run arbitrary code via DLL hijacking and social engineering.
A privilege context switching error vulnerability [CWE-270] in FortiClient Windows version 7.2.4 and below, version 7.0.12 and below, 6.4 all versions may allow an authenticated user to escalate their privileges via lua auto patch scripts.
An improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-295] in FortiClientWindows 6.4 all versions, 7.0.0 through 7.0.7, FortiClientMac 6.4 all versions, 7.0 all versions, 7.2.0 through 7.2.4, FortiClientLinux 6.4 all versions, 7.0 all versions, 7.2.0 through 7.2.4, FortiClientAndroid 6.4 all versions, 7.0 all versions, 7.2.0 and FortiClientiOS 5.6 all versions, 6.0.0 through 6.0.1, 7.0.0 through 7.0.6 SAML SSO feature may allow an unauthenticated attacker to man-in-the-middle the communication between the FortiClient and both the service provider and the identity provider.
DHCP can add routes to a client’s routing table via the classless static route option (121). VPN-based security solutions that rely on routes to redirect traffic can be forced to leak traffic over the physical interface. An attacker on the same local network can read, disrupt, or possibly modify network traffic that was expected to be protected by the VPN.