CVE-2023-44204
Juniper Junos Os Evolved 21.4 … 23.2
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-44204 is a medium-severity Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (CWE-1286) vulnerability in Juniper Junos Os Evolved. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique LSASS Memory (T1003.001); ranked at the 21th 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-2023-48563
Vulnerability Data
An Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input vulnerability in Routing Protocol Daemon (rpd) Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an unauthenticated, network based attacker to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). When a malformed BGP UPDATE…
more
packet is received over an established BGP session, the rpd crashes and restarts. This issue affects both eBGP and iBGP implementations. This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS * 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3-S4; * 22.1 versions prior to 22.1R3-S3; * 22.2 versions prior to 22.2R3-S2; * 22.3 versions prior to 22.3R2-S2, 22.3R3; * 22.4 versions prior to 22.4R2-S1, 22.4R3; * 23.2 versions prior to 23.2R1, 23.2R2; Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved * 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3-S5-EVO; * 22.1 versions prior to 22.1R3-S3-EVO; * 22.2 versions prior to 22.2R3-S3-EVO; * 22.3 versions prior to 22.3R2-S2-EVO; * 22.4 versions prior to 22.4R3-EVO; * 23.2 versions prior to 23.2R2-EVO;
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.2V2.2.2V3.5.5V5.4.1
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.
Security testing and developer training directly verify and enforce proper input validation, reducing exploitability of injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security testing and evaluation at multiple SDLC stages directly detects missing or flawed input validation, with the required remediation process ensuring fixes are applied.
Directly implements checks on information inputs to reject invalid data before processing.
Spam protection mechanisms perform filtering and detection on inbound/outbound messages, directly compensating for missing or weak input validation of unsolicited content.
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 directly require syntactic input validation to prevent malformed data handling.
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.
A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices including secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing (scans/penetration), and developer training that reach syntactic validation defects, but leaves a bounded remainder (e.g. incomplete enforcement across all parsers, second-order inputs, or outsourced components where assurance is only obtained not enforced).
Application security requirements explicitly call for validation of input syntax.
A.8.27 mandates security engineering principles including data validation/sanitization, distrust external input, security by design, and design reviews against attack patterns, which directly stops syntactic validation flaws from reaching production in most cases; the bounded remainder is incomplete application to outsourced development, legacy code, or post-design changes.
Secure coding standards directly require proper syntactic validation of all inputs.
Security testing in development catches missing or incorrect syntax validation.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-20, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.