Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-30389

Juniper Junos 21.4

Published
12 April 2024
Modified
06 February 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 6.9
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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 0.0036 29th percentile
Risk Priority 41 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-30389 is a medium-severity Incorrect Behavior Order (CWE-696) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 29th 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 RA-5 (Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

An Incorrect Behavior Order vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE) of Juniper Networks Junos OS on EX4300 Series allows an unauthenticated, network-based attacker to cause an integrity impact to networks downstream of the vulnerable device. When an output firewall…

more

filter is applied to an interface it doesn't recognize matching packets but permits any traffic. This issue affects Junos OS 21.4 releases from 21.4R1 earlier than 21.4R3-S6. This issue does not affect Junos OS releases earlier than 21.4R1.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-30410Same product: Juniper Ex4300
CVE-2024-30384Same product: Juniper Ex4300
CVE-2023-36844Same product: Juniper Ex4300
CVE-2023-36847Same product: Juniper Ex4300
CVE-2023-36851Same product: Juniper Ex4300
CVE-2024-21619Same product: Juniper Ex4300
CVE-2024-21620Same product: Juniper Ex4300
CVE-2026-21910Same product: Juniper Ex4300
CVE-2025-30644Same product: Juniper Ex4300
CVE-2026-33781Same product: Juniper Ex4300

Affected Assets

juniper
junos
21.4

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages can discover incorrect ordering of related behaviors before deployment.

Vulnerability scanning may surface order-related weaknesses after code is built but does not address their root cause.

Mandating a documented development process and standards enforces review of behavior ordering within the software lifecycle.

Security and privacy engineering principles applied during design and implementation directly require correct sequencing of operations to avoid introducing order-dependent flaws.

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 correct sequencing of security-relevant operations 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.

finds

Security testing can detect ordering flaws but does not prevent them during development.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates correct sequencing of security activities, directly preventing incorrect behavior order.

prevents

Secure system architecture and engineering principles require proper ordering of design and implementation steps.

prevents

Secure coding standards enforce correct execution order of security-critical operations.

none

Change management may catch order-related issues during reviews but does not address root cause.

References