CVE-2022-22193

An Improper Handling of Unexpected Data Type vulnerability in the Routing Protocol Daemon (rpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows a locally authenticated attacker with low privileges to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). Continued execution of this command might cause a sustained Denial of Service condition. If BGP rib sharding is configured and a certain CLI command is executed the rpd process can crash. During the rpd crash and restart, the routing protocols might be impacted and traffic disruption might be seen due to the loss of routing information. This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS 20.3 versions prior to 20.3R3-S1; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R3; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R2. Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3-EVO; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R3-EVO; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R2-EVO. This issue does not affect: Juniper Networks Junos OS versions prior to 20.3R1. Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved versions prior to 20.3R1-EVO.

Weakness

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a particular element is not the expected type, e.g. it expects a digit (0-9) but is provided with a letter (A-Z).

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.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/48.html

References

• https://kb.juniper.net/JSA69503