CVE-2025-21601
Juniper Junos ≤ 21.4
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:Y/R:A/V:C/RE:M/U:AmberCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-21601 is a high-severity Improper Following of Specification by Caller (CWE-573) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 33th 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-2025-10526
Vulnerability Data
An Improper Following of Specification by Caller vulnerability in web management (J-Web, Captive Portal, 802.1X, Juniper Secure Connect (JSC) of Juniper Networks Junos OS on SRX Series, EX Series, MX240, MX480, MX960, QFX5120 Series, allows an unauthenticated, network-based attacker, sending…
more
genuine traffic targeted to the device to cause the CPU to climb until the device becomes unresponsive. Continuous receipt of these packets will create a sustained Denial of Service (DoS) condition. This issue affects Junos OS: * All versions before 21.4R3-S9, * from 22.2 before 22.2R3-S5, * from 22.4 before 22.4R3-S4, * from 23.2 before 23.2R2-S3, * from 23.4 before 23.4R2-S3, * from 24.2 before 24.2R1-S1, 24.2R2. An indicator of compromise is to review the CPU % of the httpd process in the CLI: e.g. show system processes extensive | match httpd PID nobody 52 0 20M 191M select 2 0:01 80.00% httpd{httpd} <<<<< the percentage of httpd usage if high may be an indicator
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover cases where callers fail to follow required specifications or APIs.
Requiring a documented development process and standards reduces the chance that callers will deviate from language, framework, or protocol specifications.
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 correct adherence to language, framework, protocol and platform specifications during implementation.
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 can detect specification non-compliance but does not itself prevent the weakness.
Secure development life cycle mandates adherence to language, framework and protocol specifications, directly reducing improper caller behavior.
Application security requirements explicitly capture specification compliance obligations that callers must follow.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles include specification adherence as a design constraint.
Secure coding standards enforce correct use of APIs, protocols and language features, mitigating caller specification violations.
Change management can catch specification drift during updates but is not a primary mitigation.