CVE-2020-1646

On Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved devices, processing a specific UPDATE for an EBGP peer can lead to a routing process daemon (RPD) crash and restart. This issue occurs only when the device is receiving and processing the BGP UPDATE for an EBGP peer. This issue does not occur when the device is receiving and processing the BGP UPDATE for an IBGP peer. However, the offending BGP UPDATE can originally come from an EBGP peer, propagates through the network via IBGP peers without causing crash, then it causes RPD crash when it is processed for a BGP UPDATE towards an EBGP peer. Repeated receipt and processing of the same specific BGP UPDATE can result in an extended Denial of Service (DoS) condition. This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS: 17.3R3-S6, 17.4R2-S7, and 18.1R3-S7. Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved 19.2R2-EVO and later versions, prior to 19.3R1-EVO. Other Junos OS releases are not affected.

Weakness

The product does not properly filter, remove, quote, or otherwise manage the invalid use of special elements in user-controlled input, which could cause adverse effect on its behavior and integrity.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

References

• https://kb.juniper.net/JSA11033
• https://kb.juniper.net/JSA11033