CVE-2023-28961

An Improper Handling of Unexpected Data Type vulnerability in IPv6 firewall filter processing of Juniper Networks Junos OS on the ACX Series devices will prevent a firewall filter with the term from next-header ah from being properly installed in the packet forwarding engine (PFE). There is no immediate indication of an incomplete firewall filter commit shown at the CLI, which could allow an attacker to send valid packets to or through the device that were explicitly intended to be dropped. An indication that the filter was not installed can be identified with the following logs: fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_rule_prepare : Config failed: Unsupported Ip-protocol 51 in the filter lo0.0-inet6-i fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_rule_prepare : Please detach the filter, remove unsupported match and re-attach fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_process_rule : Status:104 dnx_dfw_rule_prepare failed fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_process_filter : Status:104 dnx_dfw_process_rule failed fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_update_filter_in_hw : Status:104 Could not process filter(lo0.0-inet6-i) for rule expansion Unsupported match, action present. fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_create_hw_instance : Status:104 Could not program dfw(lo0.0-inet6-i) type(IFP_DFLT_INET6_Lo0_FILTER)! [104] fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_bind_shim : [104] Could not create dfw(lo0.0-inet6-i) type(IFP_DFLT_INET6_Lo0_FILTER) fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_update_resolve : [100] Failed to bind filter(3) to bind point fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_change_end : dnx_dfw_update_resolve (resolve type) failed This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS on ACX Series: All versions prior to 20.2R3-S7; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3-S4; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R3-S3; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R3-S4; 21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3; 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3; 22.1 versions prior to 22.1R2.

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://supportportal.juniper.net/JSA70586
• https://supportportal.juniper.net/JSA70586