CVE-2022-22176

An Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input vulnerability in the Juniper DHCP daemon (jdhcpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows an adjacent unauthenticated attacker sending a malformed DHCP packet to cause a crash of jdhcpd and thereby a Denial of Service (DoS). If option-82 is configured in a DHCP snooping / -security scenario, jdhcpd crashes if a specific malformed DHCP request packet is received. The DHCP functionality is impacted while jdhcpd restarts, and continued exploitation of the vulnerability will lead to the unavailability of the DHCP service and thereby a sustained DoS. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS 13.2 version 13.2R1 and later versions prior to 15.1R7-S11; 18.3 versions prior to 18.3R3-S6; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R2-S9, 18.4R3-S10; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R2-S3, 19.1R3-S7; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R1-S8, 19.2R3-S4; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R2-S7, 19.3R3-S4; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R3-S6; 20.1 versions prior to 20.1R3-S3; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R3-S3; 20.3 versions prior to 20.3R3-S1; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R2-S1, 21.1R3; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R1-S1, 21.2R2. This issue does not affect Juniper Networks Junos OS version 12.3R12 and prior versions.

Weakness

The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.

Affected Software

Extended Description

Often, complex inputs are expected to follow a particular syntax, which is either assumed by the input itself, or declared within metadata such as headers. The syntax could be for data exchange formats, markup languages, or even programming languages. When untrusted input is not properly validated for the expected syntax, attackers could cause parsing failures, trigger unexpected errors, or expose latent vulnerabilities that might not be directly exploitable if the input had conformed to the syntax.

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.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/66.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/676.html

References

• https://kb.juniper.net/JSA11282
• https://kb.juniper.net/JSA11282