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:X/RE:M/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-60003 is a high-severity Buffer Over-read (CWE-126) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique OS Credential Dumping (T1003); ranked at the 30th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-60003 is a buffer over-read vulnerability (CWE-126) in the routing protocol daemon (rpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved, with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H). The flaw affects Junos OS versions prior to 22.4R3-S8, 23.2 versions before 23.2R2-S5, 23.4 versions before 23.4R2-S6, 24.2 versions before 24.2R2-S2, and 24.4 versions before 24.4R2. For Junos OS Evolved, it impacts all versions before 22.4R3-S8-EVO, 23.2 versions before 23.2R2-S5-EVO, 23.4 versions before 23.4R2-S6-EVO, 24.2 versions before 24.2R2-S2-EVO, and 24.4 versions before 24.4R2-EVO.
An unauthenticated, network-based attacker can exploit the vulnerability by sending a BGP update containing a set of specific optional transitive attributes over an established peering session. The rpd will crash and restart upon attempting to advertise the received information to another peer, causing a Denial-of-Service (DoS). Exploitation is possible only if one or both BGP peers in the receiving session are non-4-byte-AS capable, as determined during BGP session establishment; Junos defaults to 4-byte-AS capability unless explicitly disabled via the "disable-4byte-as" configuration option. Affected BGP sessions can be identified using the command "show bgp neighbor <IP address> | match '4 byte AS'".
The Juniper security advisory JSA103166 details mitigation through upgrading to the fixed releases beyond the affected versions. Additional guidance is available via the Juniper support portal at https://supportportal.juniper.net/.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-2712
Vulnerability Data
A Buffer Over-read vulnerability in the routing protocol daemon (rpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an unauthenticated, network-based attacker to cause a Denial-of-Service (DoS). When an affected device receives a BGP update with a set…
more
of specific optional transitive attributes over an established peering session, rpd will crash and restart when attempting to advertise the received information to another peer. This issue can only happen if one or both of the BGP peers of the receiving session are non-4-byte-AS capable as determined from the advertised capabilities during BGP session establishment. Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved default behavior is 4-byte-AS capable unless this has been specifically disabled by configuring: [ protocols bgp ... disable-4byte-as ] Established BGP sessions can be checked by executing: show bgp neighbor <IP address> | match "4 byte AS" This issue affects: Junos OS: * all versions before 22.4R3-S8, * 23.2 versions before 23.2R2-S5, * 23.4 versions before 23.4R2-S6, * 24.2 versions before 24.2R2-S2, * 24.4 versions before 24.4R2; Junos OS Evolved: * all versions before 22.4R3-S8-EVO, * 23.2 versions before 23.2R2-S5-EVO, * 23.4 versions before 23.4R2-S6-EVO, * 24.2 versions before 24.2R2-S2-EVO, * 24.4 versions before 24.4R2-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 evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, bounds checking tests) directly finds buffer over-read flaws.
Engineering principles such as memory-safe design and bounds-checked abstractions structurally stop introduction of out-of-bounds reads.
Process isolation limits the blast radius of an over-read to the compromised domain.
Input validation enforces length and index constraints that prevent many externally triggered over-reads.
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 development practices directly prevent introduction of buffer over-read weaknesses.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover buffer over-read flaws via scanning or review.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software removes known instances of buffer over-read bugs.
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 buffer over-reads before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and bounds checking that can prevent buffer over-reads.
Application security requirements can specify buffer-size and bounds-checking rules.
Secure architecture principles include memory-safety and bounds-checking design choices.
Secure coding standards directly require bounds-checked buffer access, mitigating over-reads.