A use of hard-coded cryptographic key in Fortinet FortiClientWindows version 7.4.0, 7.2.x all versions, 7.0.x all versions, and 6.4.x all versions may allow a low-privileged user to decrypt interprocess communication via monitoring named piped.
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.
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.
A cleartext storage of sensitive information in memory vulnerability [CWE-316] affecting FortiClient VPN iOS 7.2 all versions, 7.0 all versions, 6.4 all versions, 6.2 all versions, 6.0 all versions may allow an unauthenticated attacker that has physical access to a jailbroken device to obtain cleartext passwords via keychain dump.
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.