CVE-2024-39536
Juniper Junos Os Evolved ≤ 21.2
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2024-39536 is a medium-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Juniper Junos Os Evolved. Its CVSS base score is 6.0 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 14th 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-38062
Vulnerability Data
A Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime vulnerability in the Periodic Packet Management Daemon (ppmd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an unauthenticated adjacent attacker to cause a Denial-of-Service (DoS). When a BFD session configured…
more
with authentication flaps, ppmd memory can leak. Whether the leak happens depends on a race condition which is outside the attackers control. This issue only affects BFD operating in distributed aka delegated (which is the default behavior) or inline mode. Whether the leak occurs can be monitored with the following CLI command: > show ppm request-queue FPC Pending-request fpc0 2 request-total-pending: 2 where a continuously increasing number of pending requests is indicative of the leak. This issue affects: Junos OS: * All versions before 21.2R3-S8, * 21.4 versions before 21.4R3-S7, * 22.1 versions before 22.1R3-S4, * 22.2 versions before 22.2R3-S4, * 22.3 versions before 22.3R3, * 22.4 versions before 22.4R2-S2, 22.4R3. Junos OS Evolved: * All versions before 21.2R3-S8-EVO, * 21.4-EVO versions before 21.4R3-S7-EVO, * 22.2-EVO versions before 22.2R3-S4-EVO, * 22.3-EVO versions before 22.3R3-EVO, * 22.4-EVO versions before 22.4R3-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 (static analysis, fuzzing, or runtime leak detection) directly finds missing deallocation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate memory-management disciplines that avoid leaks at introduction.
Engineering principles applied during development can require explicit resource-release patterns that stop memory leaks from being coded.
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 proper memory allocation/deallocation via coding standards, reviews, and tooling.
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 can detect unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.
Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.
Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.
Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.
Capacity management may detect memory exhaustion symptoms but does not prevent the coding flaw.