CVE-2024-39558
Juniper Junos ≤ 20.4
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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:A/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2024-39558 is a high-severity Unchecked Return Value (CWE-252) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 18th 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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-38084
Vulnerability Data
An Unchecked Return Value vulnerability in the Routing Protocol Daemon (rpd) on Juniper Networks Junos OS and Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved allows a logically adjacent, unauthenticated attacker sending a specific PIM packet to cause rpd to crash and restart,…
more
resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS), when PIM is configured with Multicast-only Fast Reroute (MoFRR). Continued receipt and processing of this packet may create a sustained Denial of Service (DoS) condition. This issue is observed on Junos and Junos Evolved platforms where PIM is configured along with MoFRR. MoFRR tries to select the active path, but due to an internal timing issue, rpd is unable to select the forwarding next-hop towards the source, resulting in an rpd crash. This issue affects: Junos OS: * All versions before 20.4R3-S10, * from 21.2 before 21.2R3-S7, * from 21.4 before 21.4R3-S6, * from 22.1 before 22.1R3-S5, * from 22.2 before 22.2R3-S3, * from 22.3 before 22.3R3, * from 22.4 before 22.4R2; Junos OS Evolved: * All versions before 20.4R3-S10 -EVO, * All versions of 21.2-EVO, * from 21.4-EVO before 21.4R3-S9-EVO, * from 22.1-EVO before 22.1R3-S5-EVO, * from 22.2-EVO before 22.2R3-S3-EVO, * from 22.3-EVO before 22.3R3-EVO, * from 22.4-EVO before 22.4R2-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 code evaluation can discover instances where return values are ignored.
Requiring a documented development process and coding standards can mandate explicit checking of all function return values.
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 require checking and handling all function return values to detect error conditions.
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 can detect missing return-value checks.
Secure development life cycle mandates verification of return values to prevent undetected failures.
Application security requirements include input/output validation and error handling that covers return-value checks.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require robust error handling and defensive coding practices.
Secure coding explicitly requires checking return values to avoid CWE-252.