CVE-2024-21600
Juniper Junos 20.4 … 22.2
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-2024-21600 is a medium-severity Improper Neutralization of Equivalent Special Elements (CWE-76) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Protocol or Service Impersonation (T1001.003); ranked at the 24th 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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-19248
Vulnerability Data
An Improper Neutralization of Equivalent Special Elements vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE) of Juniper Networks Junos OS on PTX Series allows a unauthenticated, adjacent attacker to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). When MPLS packets are meant to…
more
be sent to a flexible tunnel interface (FTI) and if the FTI tunnel is down, these will hit the reject NH, due to which the packets get sent to the CPU and cause a host path wedge condition. This will cause the FPC to hang and requires a manual restart to recover. Please note that this issue specifically affects PTX1000, PTX3000, PTX5000 with FPC3, PTX10002-60C, and PTX10008/16 with LC110x. Other PTX Series devices and Line Cards (LC) are not affected. The following log message can be seen when the issue occurs: Cmerror Op Set: Host Loopback: HOST LOOPBACK WEDGE DETECTED IN PATH ID <id> (URI: /fpc/<fpc>/pfe/<pfe>/cm/<cm>/Host_Loopback/<cm>/HOST_LOOPBACK_MAKE_CMERROR_ID[<id>]) This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS: * All versions earlier than 20.4R3-S8; * 21.1 versions earlier than 21.1R3-S4; * 21.2 versions earlier than 21.2R3-S6; * 21.3 versions earlier than 21.3R3-S3; * 21.4 versions earlier than 21.4R3-S5; * 22.1 versions earlier than 22.1R2-S2, 22.1R3; * 22.2 versions earlier than 22.2R2-S1, 22.2R3.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SA-11 requires developer testing and evaluation that can discover failures to neutralize equivalent special elements.
SI-10 requires validation of information inputs, directly stopping incomplete neutralization of equivalent special elements.
SA-8 mandates security engineering principles such as complete input validation and sanitization that cover equivalent special-element forms.
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 consistent neutralization of all equivalent special elements during input validation and sanitization.
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 (secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing, developer training) that reach improper neutralization of equivalent special elements, but only as one slice of a broad requirement whose implementation scope and rigour are left to the organisation.
Application security requirements include rules for handling special characters and equivalent encodings.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (defense-in-depth, least privilege, distrust external input, fail securely, hardening, design review against attack patterns) that reach some but not most cases of equivalent-special-element neutralization failures.
Secure coding standards directly address proper neutralization of all equivalent special elements.
Security testing can detect incomplete neutralization but does not prevent the weakness itself.