CVE-2023-44186
Juniper Junos ≤ 20.4
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-44186 is a high-severity Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions (CWE-755) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 43th 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-2023-48545
Vulnerability Data
An Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions vulnerability in AS PATH processing of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an attacker to send a BGP update message with an AS PATH containing a large number of 4-byte ASes,…
more
leading to a Denial of Service (DoS). Continued receipt and processing of these BGP updates will create a sustained Denial of Service (DoS) condition. This issue is hit when the router has Non-Stop Routing (NSR) enabled, has a non-4-byte-AS capable BGP neighbor, receives a BGP update message with a prefix that includes a long AS PATH containing large number of 4-byte ASes, and has to advertise the prefix towards the non-4-byte-AS capable BGP neighbor. Note: NSR is not supported on the SRX Series and is therefore not affected by this vulnerability. This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS: * All versions prior to 20.4R3-S8; * 21.1 versions 21.1R1 and later; * 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R3-S6; * 21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3-S5; * 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3-S5; * 22.1 versions prior to 22.1R3-S4; * 22.2 versions prior to 22.2R3-S2; * 22.3 versions prior to 22.3R2-S2, 22.3R3-S1; * 22.4 versions prior to 22.4R2-S1, 22.4R3. Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved * All versions prior to 20.4R3-S8-EVO; * 21.1 versions 21.1R1-EVO and later; * 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R3-S6-EVO; * 21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3-S5-EVO; * 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3-S5-EVO; * 22.1 versions prior to 22.1R3-S4-EVO; * 22.2 versions prior to 22.2R3-S2-EVO; * 22.3 versions prior to 22.3R2-S2-EVO, 22.3R3-S1-EVO; * 22.4 versions prior to 22.4R2-S1-EVO, 22.4R3-EVO.
- 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.
Provides defined handling (alert and additional actions) for the exceptional condition of audit logging failure.
Supplies a concrete handling action (safe mode) for exceptional conditions, mitigating risks from improper or absent handling that could allow continued attacks.
By preparing users for contingency scenarios, the control promotes proper handling of exceptional conditions instead of default or unsafe behaviors.
An updated contingency plan defines current actions for exceptional conditions, reducing the window for attackers to exploit improper handling leading to system failure.
Procedures ensure proper handling of exceptional conditions to support effective incident response.
Incident response testing confirms proper handling of exceptional conditions to limit exploit impact.
Gives users guidance on incident handling, reducing improper handling of exceptional conditions that could stem from exploited weaknesses.
Enforces structured response to exceptional conditions so the system cannot remain in an unsafe state.
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 proper exception and error handling 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.