CVE-2024-30395

NVD	https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-30395
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1287.html

An Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input vulnerability in Routing Protocol Daemon (RPD) of Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an unauthenticated, network-based attacker to cause Denial of Service (DoS).

If a BGP update is received over an established BGP session which contains a tunnel encapsulation attribute with a specifically malformed TLV, rpd will crash and restart. This issue affects:

Junos OS:

all versions before 21.2R3-S7,
from 21.3 before 21.3R3-S5,
from 21.4 before 21.4R3-S5,
from 22.1 before 22.1R3-S5,
from 22.2 before 22.2R3-S3,
from 22.3 before 22.3R3-S2,
from 22.4 before 22.4R3,
from 23.2 before 23.2R1-S2, 23.2R2.

Junos OS Evolved:

all versions before 21.2R3-S7-EVO,
from 21.3-EVO before 21.3R3-S5-EVO,
from 21.4-EVO before 21.4R3-S5-EVO,
from 22.2-EVO before 22.2R3-S3-EVO,
from 22.3-EVO before 22.3R3-S2-EVO,
from 22.4-EVO before 22.4R3-EVO,
from 23.2-EVO before 23.2R1-S2-EVO, 23.2R2-EVO.

This is a related but separate issue than the one described in JSA75739

Weakness

The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.

Extended Description

When input does not comply with the expected type, attackers could trigger unexpected errors, cause incorrect actions to take place, or exploit latent vulnerabilities that would not be possible if the input conformed with the expected type. This weakness can appear in type-unsafe programming languages, or in programming languages that support casting or conversion of an input to another type.

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.

Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input

Weakness

Extended Description

Potential Mitigations

References