Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-52986

Juniper Junos ≤ 21.2

Published
11 July 2025
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 6.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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:X/RE:M/U:X
EPSS Score 0.0011 2th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-52986 is a medium-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 6.8 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 2th 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 AC-6 (Least Privilege) and SC-6 (Resource Availability) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime vulnerability in the routing protocol daemon (rpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows a local, low privileged user to cause an impact to the availability of the device.…

more

When RIB sharding is enabled and a user executes one of several routing related 'show' commands, a certain amount of memory is leaked. When all available memory has been consumed rpd will crash and restart. The leak can be monitored with the CLI command: show task memory detail | match task_shard_mgmt_cookie where the allocated memory in bytes can be seen to continuously increase with each exploitation. This issue affects: Junos OS: * all versions before 21.2R3-S9, * 21.4 versions before 21.4R3-S11, * 22.2 versions before 22.2R3-S7, * 22.4 versions before 22.4R3-S7, * 23.2 versions before 23.2R2-S4, * 23.4 versions before 23.4R2-S4, * 24.2 versions before 24.2R2, * 24.4 versions before 24.4R1-S2, 24.4R2; Junos OS Evolved: * all versions before 22.2R3-S7-EVO * 22.4-EVO versions before 22.4R3-S7-EVO, * 23.2-EVO versions before 23.2R2-S4-EVO, * 23.4-EVO versions before 23.4R2-S4-EVO, * 24.2-EVO versions before 24.2R2-EVO, * 24.4-EVO versions before 24.4R2-EVO.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-39536Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2024-39549Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2026-33780Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2024-21611Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-22406Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2024-21613Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2026-21909Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-28982Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2025-21595Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2025-60004Same product: Juniper Junos

Affected Assets

juniper
junos
21.2, 21.4, 22.2, 22.4, 23.2 · ≤ 21.2
juniper
junos os evolved
22.2, 22.4, 23.2, 23.4, 24.2 · ≤ 22.2

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • AC-6 Least Privilege
  • SC-6 Resource Availability
  • SI-2 Flaw Remediation
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

prevent

Restricts low-privileged local users from executing the routing-related show commands that trigger the memory leak when RIB sharding is enabled.

prevent

Directly protects availability of the rpd process by mitigating exhaustion of system memory caused by the unreleased allocations.

prevent

Requires prompt application of vendor patches that close the CWE-401 leak in all listed Junos OS/Evolved releases.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

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.

detects

Security testing in development can detect unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.

prevents

Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.

detects

Capacity management may detect memory exhaustion symptoms but does not prevent the coding flaw.

References