Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-39513

Juniper Junos Os Evolved ≤ 20.4

Published
10 July 2024
Modified
07 February 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 6.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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:A/V:X/RE:X/U:X
EPSS Score 0.0014 4th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-39513 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Juniper Junos Os Evolved. Its CVSS base score is 6.8 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 4th 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 Input Validation vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE) of Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved allows a local, low-privileged attacker to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). When a specific "clear" command is run, the Advanced Forwarding Toolkit…

more

manager (evo-aftmand-bt or evo-aftmand-zx) crashes and restarts. The crash impacts all traffic going through the FPCs, causing a DoS. Running the command repeatedly leads to a sustained DoS condition. This issue affects Junos OS Evolved: * All versions before 20.4R3-S9-EVO, * from 21.2-EVO before 21.2R3-S7-EVO, * from 21.3-EVO before 21.3R3-S5-EVO, * from 21.4-EVO before 21.4R3-S6-EVO, * from 22.1-EVO before 22.1R3-S4-EVO, * from 22.2-EVO before 22.2R3-S3-EVO, * from 22.3-EVO before 22.3R3-S3-EVO, * from 22.4-EVO before 22.4R3-EVO, * from 23.2-EVO before 23.2R2-EVO.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-21590Same product: Juniper Junos Os Evolved
CVE-2023-28981Same product: Juniper Junos Os Evolved
CVE-2024-39562Same product: Juniper Junos Os Evolved
CVE-2025-21599Same product: Juniper Junos Os Evolved
CVE-2024-47502Same product: Juniper Junos Os Evolved
CVE-2023-28978Same product: Juniper Junos Os Evolved
CVE-2024-39557Same product: Juniper Junos Os Evolved
CVE-2024-39553Same product: Juniper Junos Os Evolved
CVE-2024-39520Same product: Juniper Junos Os Evolved
CVE-2023-28973Same product: Juniper Junos Os Evolved

Affected Assets

juniper
junos os evolved
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)
  • 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
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-20

Security testing and developer training directly verify and enforce proper input validation, reducing exploitability of injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

addresses: CWE-20

Security testing and evaluation at multiple SDLC stages directly detects missing or flawed input validation, with the required remediation process ensuring fixes are applied.

addresses: CWE-20

Directly implements checks on information inputs to reject invalid data before processing.

addresses: CWE-20

Spam protection mechanisms perform filtering and detection on inbound/outbound messages, directly compensating for missing or weak input validation of unsolicited content.

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 require and enforce input validation during development.

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

Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.

prevents

Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.

prevents

Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

prevents

Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.

prevents

Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.

none

Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.

References