CVE-2023-22409

An Unchecked Input for Loop Condition vulnerability in a NAT library of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows a local authenticated attacker with low privileges to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). When an inconsistent deterministic NAT configuration is present on an SRX, or MX with SPC3 and then a specific CLI command is issued the SPC will crash and restart. Repeated execution of this command will lead to a sustained DoS. Such a configuration is characterized by the total number of port blocks being greater than the total number of hosts. An example for such configuration is: [ services nat source pool TEST-POOL address x.x.x.0/32 to x.x.x.15/32 ] [ services nat source pool TEST-POOL port deterministic block-size 1008 ] [ services nat source pool TEST-POOL port deterministic host address y.y.y.0/24] [ services nat source pool TEST-POOL port deterministic include-boundary-addresses] where according to the following calculation: 65536-1024=64512 (number of usable ports per IP address, implicit) 64512/1008=64 (number of port blocks per Nat IP) x.x.x.0/32 to x.x.x.15/32 = 16 (NAT IP addresses available in NAT pool) total port blocks in NAT Pool = 64 blocks per IP * 16 IPs = 1024 Port blocks host address y.y.y.0/24 = 256 hosts (with include-boundary-addresses) If the port block size is configured to be 4032, then the total port blocks are (64512/4032) * 16 = 256 which is equivalent to the total host addresses of 256, and the issue will not be seen. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS on SRX Series, and MX Series with SPC3: All versions prior to 19.4R3-S10; 20.1 version 20.1R1 and later versions; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R3-S6; 20.3 versions prior to 20.3R3-S6; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3-S5; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R3-S4; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R3-S3; 21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3-S3; 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3-S1; 22.1 versions prior to 22.1R2-S2, 22.1R3; 22.2 versions prior to 22.2R2.

Weakness

The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.

Affected Software

Extended Description

Specified quantities include size, length, frequency, price, rate, number of operations, time, and others. Code may rely on specified quantities to allocate resources, perform calculations, control iteration, etc. When the quantity is not properly validated, then attackers can specify malicious quantities to cause excessive resource allocation, trigger unexpected failures, enable buffer overflows, etc.

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/JSA70205