Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-21610

Juniper Junos ≤ 20.4

Published
12 April 2024
Modified
19 May 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 5.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
EPSS Score 0.0048 39th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-21610 is a medium-severity Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions (CWE-755) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 39th 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

Vulnerability Data

An Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions vulnerability in the Class of Service daemon (cosd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows an authenticated, network-based attacker with low privileges to cause a limited Denial of Service (DoS). In a scaled CoS scenario…

more

with 1000s of interfaces, when specific low privileged commands, received over NETCONF, SSH or telnet, are handled by cosd on behalf of mgd, the respective child management daemon (mgd) processes will get stuck. In case of (Netconf over) SSH this leads to stuck SSH sessions, so that when the connection-limit for SSH is reached, new sessions can't be established anymore. A similar behavior will be seen for telnet etc. Stuck mgd processes can be monitored by executing the following command: user@host> show system processes extensive | match mgd | match sbwait This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS: * All versions earlier than 20.4R3-S9; * 21.2 versions earlier than 21.2R3-S7; * 21.3 versions earlier than 21.3R3-S5; * 21.4 versions earlier than 21.4R3-S5; * 22.1 versions earlier than 22.1R3-S4; * 22.2 versions earlier than 22.2R3-S3; * 22.3 versions earlier than 22.3R3-S2; * 22.4 versions earlier than 22.4R3; * 23.2 versions earlier than 23.2R1-S2, 23.2R2.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-21587Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-36832Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2024-39539Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2024-30378Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-28976Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-28974Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-22413Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-36848Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-36850Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-22410Same product: Juniper Junos

Affected Assets

juniper
junos
20.4, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 22.1 · ≤ 20.4

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

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.

addresses: CWE-755

Provides defined handling (alert and additional actions) for the exceptional condition of audit logging failure.

addresses: CWE-755

Supplies a concrete handling action (safe mode) for exceptional conditions, mitigating risks from improper or absent handling that could allow continued attacks.

addresses: CWE-755

By preparing users for contingency scenarios, the control promotes proper handling of exceptional conditions instead of default or unsafe behaviors.

addresses: CWE-755

An updated contingency plan defines current actions for exceptional conditions, reducing the window for attackers to exploit improper handling leading to system failure.

addresses: CWE-755

Procedures ensure proper handling of exceptional conditions to support effective incident response.

addresses: CWE-755

Incident response testing confirms proper handling of exceptional conditions to limit exploit impact.

addresses: CWE-755

Gives users guidance on incident handling, reducing improper handling of exceptional conditions that could stem from exploited weaknesses.

addresses: CWE-755

Enforces structured response to exceptional conditions so the system cannot remain in an unsafe state.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices explicitly require proper exception and error handling during design and coding.

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.

detects

Security testing in development and acceptance verifies correct handling of exceptional conditions.

degrades

Documented operating procedures may specify exception handling but do not guarantee implementation.

A.8.15 Logging partial match
detects

Logging captures unhandled exceptions, aiding detection but not preventing the weakness.

detects

Monitoring can surface unhandled exceptions but does not enforce proper handling.

prevents

Secure SDLC mandates exception-handling requirements and testing that directly prevent improper handling of exceptional conditions.

prevents

Application security requirements explicitly include handling of error and exceptional conditions.

References