CVE-2024-39542

An Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE) of Juniper Networks Junos OS on MX Series with MPC10/11 or LC9600, MX304, and Junos OS Evolved on ACX Series and PTX Series allows an unauthenticated, network based attacker to cause a Denial-of-Service (DoS).

This issue can occur in two scenarios:

1. If a device, which is configured with SFLOW and ECMP, receives specific valid transit traffic, which is subject to sampling, the packetio process crashes, which in turn leads to an evo-aftman crash and causes the FPC to stop working until it is restarted. (This scenario is only applicable to PTX but not to ACX or MX.)

2. If a device receives a malformed CFM packet on an interface configured with CFM, the packetio process crashes, which in turn leads to an evo-aftman crash and causes the FPC to stop working until it is restarted. Please note that the CVSS score is for the formally more severe issue 1.

The CVSS score for scenario 2. is: 6.5 (CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

This issue affects Junos OS:

• All versions before 21.2R3-S4,
• 21.4 versions before 21.4R2,
• 22.2 versions before 22.2R3-S2; 

Junos OS Evolved:

• All versions before 21.2R3-S8-EVO,
• 21.4 versions before 21.4R2-EVO.

Weakness

The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.

Extended Description

Often, complex inputs are expected to follow a particular syntax, which is either assumed by the input itself, or declared within metadata such as headers. The syntax could be for data exchange formats, markup languages, or even programming languages. When untrusted input is not properly validated for the expected syntax, attackers could cause parsing failures, trigger unexpected errors, or expose latent vulnerabilities that might not be directly exploitable if the input had conformed to the syntax.

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/66.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/676.html

References

• https://supportportal.juniper.net/JSA83002