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:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-4481 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 3% 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
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
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 (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 security requirements, secure coding guidelines, checkpoints, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a slice of input validation defects but leaves the majority (incomplete enforcement, second-order inputs, parser differentials, post-validation canonicalization) unaddressed as in the SA-3 and A.8.28 anchors.
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.
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.
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.