Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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-2024-39516 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Read (CWE-125) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 36th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-38042
Vulnerability Data
An Out-of-Bounds Read vulnerability in the routing protocol daemon (rpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an unauthenticated network-based attacker sending a specifically malformed BGP packet to cause rpd to crash and restart, resulting in a…
more
Denial of Service (DoS). Continued receipt and processing of this packet will create a sustained Denial of Service (DoS) condition. This issue only affects systems configured in either of two ways: * systems with BGP traceoptions enabled * systems with BGP traffic engineering configured This issue can affect iBGP and eBGP with any address family configured. The specific attribute involved is non-transitive, and will not propagate across a network. This issue affects: Junos OS: * All versions before 21.4R3-S8, * 22.2 before 22.2R3-S5, * 22.3 before 22.3R3-S4, * 22.4 before 22.4R3-S3, * 23.2 before 23.2R2-S2, * 23.4 before 23.4R2; Junos OS Evolved: * All versions before 21.4R3-S8-EVO, * 22.2-EVO before 22.2R3-S5-EVO, * 22.3-EVO before 22.3R3-S4-EVO, * 22.4-EVO before 22.4R3-S3-EVO, * 23.2-EVO before 23.2R2-S2-EVO, * 23.4-EVO before 23.4R2-EVO.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly finds out-of-bounds read flaws through static analysis, fuzzing, and dynamic bounds checks.
Secure engineering principles require bounds checking and memory-safe constructs that stop out-of-bounds reads from being introduced.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation rejects malformed indices or lengths that would otherwise cause reads outside buffer bounds.
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-development practices such as bounds checking and memory-safe languages directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
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 in development and acceptance includes fuzzing and static analysis that detect out-of-bounds read defects before release.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Application security requirements include explicit bounds and memory-safety specifications that mitigate buffer over-reads.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require memory-safe design patterns and runtime protections against out-of-bounds access.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds-checked reads, eliminating CWE-125.