CVE-2023-4481
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-2023-4481 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 4% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-54336
Vulnerability Data
An Improper Input Validation vulnerability in the Routing Protocol Daemon (rpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an unauthenticated, network-based attacker to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). When certain specific crafted BGP UPDATE messages are…
more
received over an established BGP session, one BGP session may be torn down with an UPDATE message error, or the issue may propagate beyond the local system which will remain non-impacted, but may affect one or more remote systems. This issue is exploitable remotely as the crafted UPDATE message can propagate through unaffected systems and intermediate BGP speakers. Continuous receipt of the crafted BGP UPDATE messages will create a sustained Denial of Service (DoS) condition for impacted devices. This issue affects eBGP and iBGP, in both IPv4 and IPv6 implementations. This issue requires a remote attacker to have at least one established BGP session. Improper Input Validation, Denial of Service vulnerability in Juniper Networks, Inc. Junos OS (BGP, rpd modules), Juniper Networks, Inc. Junos OS Evolved (BGP, rpd modules) allows Fuzzing.This issue affects Junos OS: * All versions before 20.4R3-S10, * from 21.1R1 through 21.*, * from 21.2 before 21.2R3-S5, * from 21.3 before 21.3R3-S5, * from 21.4 before 21.4R3-S7 (unaffected from 21.4R3-S5, affected from 21.4R3-S6) * from 22.1 before 22.1R3-S4, * from 22.2 before 22.2R3-S3, * from 22.3 before 22.3R3-S1, * from 22.4 before 22.4R3, * from 23.2 before 23.2R2. Junos OS Evolved: * All versions before 20.4R3-S10-EVO, * from 21.2-EVO before 21.2R3-S7-EVO, * from 21.3-EVO before 21.3R3-S5-EVO, * from 21.4-EVO before 21.4R3-S5-EVO, * from 22.1-EVO before 22.1R3-S4-EVO, * from 22.2-EVO before 22.2R3-S3-EVO, * from 22.3-EVO before 22.3R3-S1-EVO, * from 22.4-EVO before 22.4R3-EVO, * from 23.2-EVO before 23.2R2-EVO.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
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 and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20