Vendor evidence profile
Fortinet: what the public record shows
nexalign keeps a continuously updated evidence record on Fortinet for network security decisions: 130 items from 5 kinds of source, covering November 2021 to July 2026. Every item on this page links to the source it came from, carrying the date that source states and saying so plainly where it states none.
In one line
This record holds 110 advisories attributed to Fortinet products across 130 evidence items in total, 20 of them in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. 100 percent of the record comes from sources Fortinet cannot edit. Whether Fortinet suits your decision is not on this page: that depends on your criteria, your compliance scope and your shortlist, and this record does not know them.
Evidence items
130
in this record
Attributed advisories
110
20 known exploited
Authoritative share
88%
government registers
Last checked
Jul 24, 2026
sources re-queried
How independent is this record
Sources are not equal. A vendor can rewrite its own website overnight and optimise it for whatever a language model is likely to quote. It cannot edit a government vulnerability register or a years-old discussion thread. Every item in this record is classified by how much the vendor could influence it, and the score below is the weighted result.
Independence of this record
Objectivity score 95/100
- Authoritative
- 115 items, 88 percent
- Independent
- 15 items, 12 percent
- Vendor-controlled
- 0 items, 0 percent
100 percent of this record comes from sources Fortinet does not control. The remainder is Fortinet's own material and is marked as such wherever it appears.
Where this record comes from
These are the sources that contributed to the Fortinet record, with the body that operates each one. No rating, score or ranking is taken from anywhere, and no vendor pays to appear in this index or to change what it says.
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 62 | Jul 15, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 33 | Jul 16, 2026 |
| Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue | CISA, United States | Authoritative | 20 | Jul 16, 2026 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 8 | Jul 24, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 7 | Jun 17, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Vulnerability registers are searched by keyword, so an advisory about a different product often mentions Fortinet in passing. An entry is only listed here when a structural signal ties it to a product of Fortinet: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, Fortinet as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. 110 records passed that test.
- CVE-2026-39808criticalCVSS 9.1Known exploitedJul 16, 2026
Fortinet FortiSandbox OS Command Injection Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-25089criticalCVSS 9.1Known exploitedJul 16, 2026
Fortinet FortiSandbox OS Command Injection Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-21643criticalKnown exploitedApr 13, 2026
Fortinet FortiClient EMS SQL Injection Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-35616criticalCVSS 9.1Known exploitedApr 06, 2026
Fortinet FortiClient EMS Improper Access Control Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-24858criticalCVSS 9.4Known exploitedJan 27, 2026
Fortinet Multiple Products Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel Vulnerability
- CVE-2025-59718criticalCVSS 9.1Known exploitedDec 16, 2025
Fortinet Multiple Products Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature Vulnerability
104 further attributed records are held in the pool. DecisionOS shows the full set against the components you actually run.
What practitioners report
Public threads in which engineers and administrators discuss running this product. Only threads naming Fortinet in their own title are listed, so a discussion about someone else's incident cannot end up under this vendor. Not curated for sentiment: 7 threads in the record, most recent first.
- Hacker NewsJun 17, 2026Independent
FortiBleed – 75k Fortinet firewalls have admin passwords cracked
- Hacker NewsJun 17, 2026Independent
FortiBleed leak exposes Fortinet VPN credentials for 73,000 devices
- Hacker NewsOct 12, 2025Independent
Cisco, Fortinet, Palo Alto Networks Devices Targeted in Coordinated Campaign
- Hacker NewsAug 13, 2025Independent
Fortinet discloses critical bug with working exploit amid surge in brute force
- Hacker NewsOct 23, 2024Independent
Fortinet critical 0-day vulnerability being actively exploited
Independent coverage
Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and neutral technology press that name Fortinet. This section runs on a fixed list of such outlets rather than on whatever a web search returns for the company name, because that search is dominated by sales-intelligence profiles and directory listings which say nothing about the product. Social networks and press-release wires are excluded outright.
- g2.comdate not recordedIndependent
Fortinet Products | Read 1494 Reviews on G2
- peerspot.comdate not recordedIndependent
Fortinet FortiClient vs Fortinet FortiEDR (2026)
- en.wikipedia.orgdate not recordedIndependent
Fortinet - Wikipedia
- networkworld.comdate not recordedIndependent
Fortinet consolidates SD-WAN and SASE management | Network World
- peerspot.comdate not recordedIndependent
What is your primary use case for Fortinet FortiGate?
What Fortinet publishes about itself
The vendor's own documentation, kept separate from everything above and marked as vendor-controlled. It is useful, and it is a claim until an independent source confirms it.
What this record cannot tell you
A record is only trustworthy if it is explicit about its holes. These are the ones in the Fortinet record right now.
Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
Whether Fortinet is the right choice is not on this page
A record of what is true about a vendor is one half of a decision. The other half is your context: which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs, what is a hard no, and who has to sign the result off. No public page can know that, and any page that claims to rank vendors for you is guessing at it.
Typical criteria for this category
Needs your case- Detection Accuracy (MITRE ATT&CK coverage)weight
- MDR / Managed Detection & Responseweight
- Deployment Complexityweight
- Automated Response / Remediationweight
- SIEM Integrationweight
Criteria shown as examples for network security. Weighting and fit are properties of your decision, not of the vendor, so they are not published here.
What DecisionOS adds on top of this record
- The vendor scored against your criteria with your weighting, not against a generic ranking
- A dealbreaker check against your hard constraints: data residency, contract terms, existing stack
- A side-by-side view of the alternatives on your shortlist, built from this same evidence pool
- This evidence mapped onto your compliance scope: NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2
- A decision memo your board can read, with the trade-offs and the reasoning on the record
Questions this page answers
Is Fortinet a safe choice?
The public record holds 110 advisories attributed to Fortinet products and 130 evidence items in total. 20 of them appear in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. Whether that is acceptable depends on your risk appetite, your compliance scope and the alternatives on your shortlist, none of which a public page can know. This page reports the record; it does not rate the vendor.
Where does the Fortinet data on this page come from?
From 5 kinds of source: European Vulnerability Database, operated by ENISA, European Union; CERT-Bund security advisories, operated by BSI, Federal Republic of Germany; Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue, operated by CISA, United States; Analyst, review and reference sources, operated by Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press; Engineering discussions, operated by Hacker News, public threads. Every item carries its source URL and, where the source states one, its date.
Does Fortinet pay to appear in this index?
No. There is no paid placement, no sponsored profile and no way for a vendor to change what the record says. Vendors are listed because their category comes up in enterprise technology decisions. Corrections to a specific entry can be sent to [email protected] and are checked against the source.
How much of the Fortinet record is the vendor's own material?
0 percent. The remaining 100 percent comes from sources Fortinet does not control. Vendor-published material stays in the record and is labelled as vendor-controlled rather than counted as independent confirmation.
Why does this page not say whether Fortinet is better than the alternatives?
Because better only exists relative to a decision. Which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs and what counts as a dealbreaker are properties of the buyer, not of the vendor. DecisionOS takes this same evidence pool and scores it against the criteria of an actual decision, which is where a comparison becomes meaningful.
How this record is built
Sources are queried on a schedule, not on request. Findings are stored with the source URL, the event date and a content hash, so the same item is never counted twice and every statement stays traceable to where it came from.
Nothing on this page is written by a language model. Counts are counts, dates are the dates the sources carry, and titles are the sources' own wording. Where a section is empty, that is a finding in itself and is stated as one.
Corrections are welcome. If an entry is wrong or an attribution is off, write to [email protected] and it gets checked against the source.
Citing this page
nexalign GmbH, Fortinet: what the public record shows, nexalign vendor evidence index, Jul 24, 2026. Available at nexalign.io/vendors/fortinet.
Fortinet next to a product it competes with
The same two records side by side, with the reasons their numbers cannot be subtracted from one another stated on the page.
Other vendors in network security
The whole field is on one page: every network security vendor with a published record, with the size of each.
Check Point
137 evidence items from 5 sources
Palo Alto Networks
116 evidence items from 5 sources
Cisco Security
93 evidence items from 5 sources
Juniper Networks
86 evidence items from 6 sources
SonicWall
73 evidence items from 6 sources
WatchGuard
66 evidence items from 5 sources
Turn this record into a decision you can defend
DecisionOS takes the same evidence pool this page is built from, weighs it against the criteria of your actual decision, and produces a memo that holds up in front of a board and an auditor.