ghsa-34f4-m9rh-9x9j
Vulnerability from github
Published
2024-07-11 18:31
Modified
2024-07-12 18:31
Details

An Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE) of Juniper Networks Junos OS on MX Series with MPC10/11 or LC9600, MX304, and Junos OS Evolved on ACX Series and PTX Series allows an unauthenticated, network based attacker to cause a Denial-of-Service (DoS).

This issue can occur in two scenarios:

  1. If a device, which is configured with SFLOW and ECMP, receives specific valid transit traffic, which is subject to sampling, the packetio process crashes, which in turn leads to an evo-aftman crash and causes the FPC to stop working until it is restarted. (This scenario is only applicable to PTX but not to ACX or MX.)

  2. If a device receives a malformed CFM packet on an interface configured with CFM, the packetio process crashes, which in turn leads to an evo-aftman crash and causes the FPC to stop working until it is restarted. Please note that the CVSS score is for the formally more severe issue 1.

The CVSS score for scenario 2. is: 6.5 (CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

This issue affects Junos OS:

  • All versions before 21.2R3-S4,
  • 21.4 versions before 21.4R2,
  • 22.2 versions before 22.2R3-S2; 

Junos OS Evolved:

  • All versions before 21.2R3-S8-EVO,
  • 21.4 versions before 21.4R2-EVO.
Show details on source website


{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-39542"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-1286"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-07-11T17:15:13Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "An Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE) of Juniper Networks Junos OS on MX Series with MPC10/11 or LC9600, MX304, and Junos OS Evolved on ACX Series and PTX Series allows an unauthenticated, network based attacker to cause a Denial-of-Service (DoS).\n\nThis issue can occur in two scenarios:\n\n1. If a device, which is configured with SFLOW and ECMP, receives specific valid transit traffic, which is subject to sampling, the packetio process crashes, which in turn leads to an evo-aftman crash and causes the FPC to stop working until it is restarted. (This scenario is only applicable to PTX but not to ACX or MX.)\n\n2. If a device receives a malformed CFM packet on an interface configured with CFM, the packetio process crashes, which in turn leads to an evo-aftman crash and causes the FPC to stop working until it is restarted.\u00a0Please note that the CVSS score is for the formally more severe issue 1.\n\nThe CVSS score for scenario 2. is: 6.5 (CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)\n\n\n\n\nThis issue affects Junos OS:\n\n\n\n  *  All versions before\u00a021.2R3-S4,\n  *  21.4 versions before 21.4R2,\n  *  22.2 versions before 22.2R3-S2;\u00a0\n\n\n\n\nJunos OS Evolved:\n\n\n\n\n  *  All versions before\u00a021.2R3-S8-EVO,\n  *  21.4 versions before 21.4R2-EVO.",
  "id": "GHSA-34f4-m9rh-9x9j",
  "modified": "2024-07-12T18:31:48Z",
  "published": "2024-07-11T18:31:13Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-39542"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://supportportal.juniper.net/JSA83002"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.