CVE-2026-0203
Juniper Junos ≤ 21.2
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:Y/R:A/V:X/RE:M/U:AmberSummary
CVE-2026-0203 is a high-severity Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions (CWE-755) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 16th 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 SC-7 (Boundary Protection) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-2681
Vulnerability Data
An Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions vulnerability in packet processing of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows an unauthenticated, network-adjacent attacker sending a specifically malformed ICMP packet to cause an FPC to crash and restart, resulting in a Denial of Service…
more
(DoS). When an ICMP packet is received with a specifically malformed IP header value, the FPC receiving the packet crashes and restarts. Due to the specific type of malformed packet, adjacent upstream routers would not forward the packet, limiting the attack surface to adjacent networks. This issue only affects ICMPv4. ICMPv6 is not vulnerable to this issue. This issue does not affect AFT-based line cards such as the MPC10, MPC11, LC4800, LC9600, and MX304. This issue affects Junos OS: * all versions before 21.2R3-S9, * from 21.4 before 21.4R3-S10, * from 22.2 before 22.2R3-S7, * from 22.3 before 22.3R3-S4, * from 22.4 before 22.4R3-S5, * from 23.2 before 23.2R2-S3, * from 23.4 before 23.4R2-S3, * from 24.2 before 24.2R1-S2, 24.2R2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Malformed ICMP packet triggers FPC crash via improper exception handling in packet processing, directly enabling application/system exploitation for endpoint DoS.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of malformed ICMPv4 packets with exceptional IP header values before processing, preventing the FPC crash.
Boundary protection at network edges can filter or drop the specifically malformed adjacent-only ICMP packets before they reach the vulnerable FPC.
Limits effects of the resulting DoS by protecting resource availability on the packet-processing FPC against crafted exceptional-condition packets.
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 explicitly require proper exception and error handling during design and coding.
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 verifies correct handling of exceptional conditions.
Documented operating procedures may specify exception handling but do not guarantee implementation.
Logging captures unhandled exceptions, aiding detection but not preventing the weakness.
Monitoring can surface unhandled exceptions but does not enforce proper handling.
Secure SDLC mandates exception-handling requirements and testing that directly prevent improper handling of exceptional conditions.
Application security requirements explicitly include handling of error and exceptional conditions.