Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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-2024-21594 is a medium-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Data Obfuscation (T1001); ranked at the 6th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-19242
Vulnerability Data
A Heap-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in the Network Services Daemon (NSD) of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows authenticated, low privileged, local attacker to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). On an SRX 5000 Series device, when executing a specific command…
more
repeatedly, memory is corrupted, which leads to a Flow Processing Daemon (flowd) crash. The NSD process has to be restarted to restore services. If this issue occurs, it can be checked with the following command: user@host> request security policies check The following log message can also be observed: Error: policies are out of sync for PFE node<number>.fpc<number>.pic<number>. This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS on SRX 5000 Series * All versions earlier than 20.4R3-S6; * 21.1 versions earlier than 21.1R3-S5; * 21.2 versions earlier than 21.2R3-S4; * 21.3 versions earlier than 21.3R3-S3; * 21.4 versions earlier than 21.4R3-S3; * 22.1 versions earlier than 22.1R3-S1; * 22.2 versions earlier than 22.2R3; * 22.3 versions earlier than 22.3R2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
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.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
Secure-development practices directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
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.