Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-21611

Juniper Junos 21.4 … 22.2

Published
12 January 2024
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0059 45th percentile
Risk Priority 58 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-21611 is a high-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 45th 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime 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). In a Juniper Flow…

more

Monitoring (jflow) scenario route churn that causes BGP next hops to be updated will cause a slow memory leak and eventually a crash and restart of rpd. Thread level memory utilization for the areas where the leak occurs can be checked using the below command: user@host> show task memory detail | match so_in so_in6 28 32 344450 11022400 344760 11032320 so_in 8 16 1841629 29466064 1841734 29467744 This issue affects: Junos OS * 21.4 versions earlier than 21.4R3; * 22.1 versions earlier than 22.1R3; * 22.2 versions earlier than 22.2R3. Junos OS Evolved * 21.4-EVO versions earlier than 21.4R3-EVO; * 22.1-EVO versions earlier than 22.1R3-EVO; * 22.2-EVO versions earlier than 22.2R3-EVO. This issue does not affect: Juniper Networks Junos OS versions earlier than 21.4R1. Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved versions earlier than 21.4R1.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1499 Endpoint Denial of Service Impact
Adversaries may perform Endpoint Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to degrade or block the availability of services to users.
T1499.003 Application Exhaustion Flood Impact
Adversaries may target resource intensive features of applications to cause a denial of service (DoS), denying availability to those applications.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-33780Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2026-21909Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-22406Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2025-21595Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2024-39549Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2024-21613Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2024-39536Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2025-52986Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-28982Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-22395Same product: Juniper Junos

Affected Assets

juniper
junos
21.4, 22.1, 22.2
juniper
junos os evolved
21.4, 22.1, 22.2

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, or runtime leak detection) directly finds missing deallocation.

Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate memory-management disciplines that avoid leaks at introduction.

Engineering principles applied during development can require explicit resource-release patterns that stop memory leaks from being coded.

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 directly enforce proper memory allocation/deallocation via coding standards, reviews, and tooling.

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.

finds

Security testing in development can detect unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.

prevents

Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.

finds

Capacity management may detect memory exhaustion symptoms but does not prevent the coding flaw.

References