CVE-2024-30410
Juniper Junos ≤ 20.4
Raw vector
CVSS: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:XSummary
CVE-2024-30410 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
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-28331
Vulnerability Data
An Incorrect Behavior Order in the routing engine (RE) of Juniper Networks Junos OS on EX4300 Series allows traffic intended to the device to reach the RE instead of being discarded when the discard term is set in loopback (lo0)…
more
interface. The intended function is that the lo0 firewall filter takes precedence over the revenue interface firewall filter. This issue affects only IPv6 firewall filter. This issue only affects the EX4300 switch. No other products or platforms are affected by this vulnerability. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS: * All versions before 20.4R3-S10, * from 21.2 before 21.2R3-S7, * from 21.4 before 21.4R3-S6.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
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.
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.
Security testing can detect ordering flaws but does not prevent them during development.
Secure development life cycle mandates correct sequencing of security activities, directly preventing incorrect behavior order.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require proper ordering of design and implementation steps.
Secure coding standards enforce correct execution order of security-critical operations.
Change management may catch order-related issues during reviews but does not address root cause.