Código HTML do Conteúdo
Post: Spike in Fortinet VPN brute-force attacks raises zero-day concerns
<div>
<div>
<p>A massive spike in brute-force attacks targeted Fortinet SSL VPNs earlier this month, followed by a switch to FortiManager, marked a deliberate shift in targeting that has historically preceded new vulnerability disclosures.</p>
<p>The campaign, detected by threat monitoring platform GreyNoise, manifested in two waves, on August 3 and August 5, with the second wave pivoting to FortiManager targeting with a different TCP signature.</p>
<p>As GreyNoise <a href="https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/spikes-in-malicious-activity-precede-new-cves-in-80-percent-of-cases/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">previously reported</a>, such spikes in deliberate scanning and brute-forcing precede the disclosure of new security vulnerabilities 80% of the time.</p>
<p>Often, such scans aim at enumerating exposed endpoints, evaluating their significance, and estimating their exploitation potential, with actual attack waves following shortly after.</p>
<p>“New research shows spikes like this often precede the disclosure of new vulnerabilities affecting the same vendor — most within six weeks,” warned GreyNoise.</p>
<p>“In fact, GreyNoise found that spikes in activity triggering this exact tag are significantly correlated with future disclosed vulnerabilities in Fortinet products.”</p>
<p>Due to this, defenders shouldn’t dismiss those spikes in activity as failed attempts to exploit old, patched flaws, but rather treat them as potential precursors to zero-day disclosure and strengthen security measures to block them.</p>
<h2>The Fortinet brute-force attacks</h2>
<p>On August 3, 2025, GreyNoise recorded a spike in brute-forcing attempts targeting Fortinet SSL VPN as part of a steady activity it has been monitoring since earlier.</p>
<p>JA4+ fingerprint analysis,a network fingerprinting method for identifying and classifying encrypted traffic, linked the spike to June activity originating from a FortiGate device on a residential IP address associated with Pilot Fiber Inc.</p>
<p>“This overlap doesn’t confirm attribution, but it suggests possible reuse of tooling or network environments,” <a href="https://www.greynoise.io/blog/vulnerability-fortinet-vpn-bruteforce-spike" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">commented GreyNoise</a> in its bulletin.</p>
<div>
<p><img decoding="async" alt="Activity spike on August 3" height="600" src="https://datalake.azaeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/spike.jpg" width="1129 /></div>
<p>Two days later, on August 5, a new brute-force campaign from the same attacker emerged,which switched targeting from FortiOS SSL VPN endpoints to FortiManager's FGFM service.</p>
<p>">FortiOS profile, traffic fingerprinted with TCP and client signatures — a meta signature — from August 5 onward was not hitting<em>FortiOS</em>,” explained GreyNoise.</p>
<p>“Instead, it was consistently targeting our<em>FortiManager – FGFM</em> profile albeit still triggering our Fortinet SSL VPN Bruteforcer tag.”</p>
<p>This shift suggested that either the same attackers or the same toolset/infrastructure moved from trying to brute-force VPN logins to trying to brute-force FortiManager access.</p>
<p>The IP addresses associated with this activity, and which should be placed on blocklists, are:</p>
<ul>
<li>31.206.51.194</li>
<li>23.120.100.230</li>
<li>96.67.212.83</li>
<li>104.129.137.162</li>
<li>118.97.151.34</li>
<li>180.254.147.16</li>
<li>20.207.197.237</li>
<li>180.254.155.227</li>
<li>185.77.225.174</li>
<li>45.227.254.113</li>
</ul>
<p>GreyNoise notes that the tracked malicious activity is evolving with time and is associated with a specific origin cluster that most likely performs adaptive testing.</p>
<p>In general, this activity is unlikely to be researcher scans, which are typically broader in scope and limited in rate, and wouldn’t involve credential brute-forcing, which is seen as an apparent intrusion attempt.</p>
<p>Hence, defenders should block the listed IPs, increase login protection on Fortinet devices, and harden external access where possible, restricting access only to trusted IP ranges and VPNs.</p>
<p><a href="https://hubs.li/Q03B5Kw_0" rel="noopener sponsored" target="_blank"><br />
<img decoding="async" alt="Picus Blue Report 2025" src="https://datalake.azaeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/blue-report-2025.jpg"><br />
</a>
</p>
</div>
</div></div>