CVE-2023-36842
Juniper Junos ≤ 20.4
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-36842 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, ranked at the 22th 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-2023-40762
Vulnerability Data
An Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions vulnerability in Juniper DHCP Daemon (jdhcpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows an adjacent, unauthenticated attacker to cause the jdhcpd to consume all the CPU cycles resulting in a Denial of Service…
more
(DoS). On Junos OS devices with forward-snooped-client configured, if an attacker sends a specific DHCP packet to a non-configured interface, this will cause an infinite loop. The DHCP process will have to be restarted to recover the service. This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS * All versions earlier than 20.4R3-S9; * 21.2 versions earlier than 21.2R3-S7; * 21.3 versions earlier than 21.3R3-S5; * 21.4 versions earlier than 21.4R3-S5; * 22.1 versions earlier than 22.1R3-S4; * 22.2 versions earlier than 22.2R3-S3; * 22.3 versions earlier than 22.3R3-S2; * 22.4 versions earlier than 22.4R2-S2, 22.4R3; * 23.2 versions earlier than 23.2R2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
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.