CVE-2023-36850

An Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input vulnerability in the Connectivity Fault Management(CFM) module of Juniper Networks Junos OS on MX Series(except MPC10, MPC11 and LC9600) allows an adjacent attacker on the local broadcast domain to cause a Denial of Service(DoS).

Upon receiving a malformed CFM packet, the MPC crashes. Continued receipt of these packets causes a sustained denial of service. This issue can only be triggered when CFM hasnt been configured.

This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS All versions prior to 19.1R3-S10 on MX Series; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R3-S7 on MX Series; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R3-S8 on MX Series; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R3-S12 on MX Series; 20.1 version 20.1R1 and later versions on MX Series; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R3-S7 on MX Series; 20.3 version 20.3R1 and later versions on MX Series; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3-S7 on MX Series; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R3-S5 on MX Series; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R3-S4 on MX Series; 21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3-S4 on MX Series; 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3-S3 on MX Series; 22.1 versions prior to 22.1R3-S2 on MX Series; 22.2 versions prior to 22.2R3 on MX Series; 22.3 versions prior to 22.3R2, 22.3R3 on MX Series; 22.4 versions prior to 22.4R2 on MX Series.

Weakness

The product receives input that is expected to specify an index, position, or offset into an indexable resource such as a buffer or file, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the specified index/position/offset has the required properties.

Affected Software

Extended Description

Often, indexable resources such as memory buffers or files can be accessed using a specific position, index, or offset, such as an index for an array or a position for a file. When untrusted input is not properly validated before it is used as an index, attackers could access (or attempt to access) unauthorized portions of these resources. This could be used to cause buffer overflows, excessive resource allocation, or trigger unexpected failures.

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://supportportal.juniper.net/JSA71661