CVE-2024-39533
Juniper Junos ≤ 21.2
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-2024-39533 is a medium-severity Unimplemented or Unsupported Feature in UI (CWE-447) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 22th 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 SI-6 (Security and Privacy Function Verification) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-38059
Vulnerability Data
An Unimplemented or Unsupported Feature in the UI vulnerability in Juniper Networks Junos OS on QFX5000 Series and EX4600 Series allows an unauthenticated, network-based attacker to cause a minor integrity impact to downstream networks.If one or more of the following…
more
match conditions ip-source-address ip-destination-address arp-type which are not supported for this type of filter, are used in an ethernet switching filter, and then this filter is applied as an output filter, the configuration can be committed but the filter will not be in effect. This issue affects Junos OS on QFX5000 Series and EX4600 Series: * All version before 21.2R3-S7, * 21.4 versions before 21.4R3-S6, * 22.1 versions before 22.1R3-S5, * 22.2 versions before 22.2R3-S3, * 22.3 versions before 22.3R3-S2, * 22.4 versions before 22.4R3, * 23.2 versions before 23.2R2. Please note that the implemented fix ensures these unsupported match conditions cannot be committed anymore.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing at post-design stages directly exercises UI claims versus actual behavior and will expose unimplemented security features.
Periodic verification of security functions will reveal that a UI-advertised capability is not actually present or operating.
Requiring a documented development process and tools reduces the chance that a security feature is left unimplemented while its UI is shipped.
Mandating an SDLC that incorporates security engineering makes it less likely that advertised features remain stubs.
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 and monitoring directly prevent stubbed security features by requiring verified implementation and testing.
Security tests and exercises would detect unimplemented UI features, though the control addresses broader improvement identification.
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 would detect unimplemented security features before release.
Secure development lifecycle requires that security features are actually implemented, not just presented in the UI.
Application security requirements should specify that advertised security functions must be fully implemented.
Secure coding practices reduce the chance of leaving security features unimplemented.