CVE-2023-28970
Juniper Junos ≤ 21.2
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-28970 is a medium-severity Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions (CWE-703) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 23th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-32588
Vulnerability Data
An Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions vulnerability in packet processing on the network interfaces of Juniper Networks Junos OS on JRR200 route reflector appliances allows an adjacent, network-based attacker sending a specific packet to the device to cause…
more
a kernel crash, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS). Continued receipt and processing of this packet will create a sustained Denial of Service (DoS) condition. This issue can only be triggered by an attacker on the local broadcast domain. Packets routed to the device are unable to trigger this crash. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS on JRR200: All versions prior to 21.2R3-S4; 21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3-S4; 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3-S3; 22.1 versions prior to 22.1R3-S1; 22.2 versions prior to 22.2R2-S2, 22.2R3; 22.3 versions prior to 22.3R1-S2, 22.3R2; 22.4 versions prior to 22.4R1-S1, 22.4R2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
—
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Implements explicit check and handling for the exceptional condition of audit logging process failure.
Provides a defined response to detected conditions by restricting operation, ensuring exceptional conditions are handled rather than ignored or mishandled.
Contingency training equips users with defined procedures to check and respond to exceptional conditions during disruptions, reducing exploitation of mishandled errors.
Regular updates keep contingency procedures aligned with system changes, providing structured handling for exceptional conditions that would otherwise allow unmitigated exploitation.
Policy defines checks and handling for exceptional conditions arising from security incidents.
Performing IR tests ensures exceptional conditions are properly checked and handled to enable effective response.
Supplies advice and assistance on handling incidents, improving checks and responses to exceptional conditions.
Mandates explicit, predictable handling of exceptional conditions rather than undefined continuation.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices explicitly require anticipating and correctly handling exceptional conditions during design and coding.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development and acceptance verifies correct handling of exceptional conditions.
Documented operating procedures may specify exception handling but do not guarantee implementation.
Logging captures unhandled exceptions, aiding detection but not preventing the weakness.
Monitoring can surface unhandled exceptions but does not enforce proper handling.
Secure SDLC mandates exception-handling requirements and testing that directly prevent improper handling of exceptional conditions.
Application security requirements explicitly include handling of error and exceptional conditions.