CVE-2026-102047
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:C/RE:M/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-102047 is a high-severity Improper Validation of Consistency within Input (CWE-1288) vulnerability in Juniper Networks Junos (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Junk Data (T1001.001); 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-101371
Vulnerability Data
An Improper Validation of Consistency within Input vulnerability in the l2cpd process of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an adjacent unauthenticated Layer 2 attacker to cause a denial of service in associated Layer 2 control protocols…
more
via a crafted MVRP Ethernet frame sent to an MVRP-enabled interface.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V2.2.2V4.2.3V12.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SI-10 requires validity checks on supplied inputs, directly stopping acceptance of internally inconsistent complex data.
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 consistency validation for complex inputs.
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.
A.8.25 mandates security requirements, checkpoints, secure coding, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a minority slice of consistency-validation defects when those practices are applied to input handling but leaves most instances (e.g. ad-hoc parsing, non-security requirements, post-SDLC changes) unaddressed.
A.8.26 explicitly requires identifying and addressing input validation and consistency-related requirements (items j, m, n, and resilience against injections/disruptions in d), which when implemented stops exploitation of consistency-validation flaws even if the code defect remains.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles including data validation/sanitization, distrust-external-input, secure design reviews against attack patterns, and zero-trust verification of requests; this directly stops most consistency-validation flaws from being introduced or exploitable, with a bounded remainder in implementation gaps or non-applicable outsourced components.
Secure coding standards explicitly require validation of interrelated input fields to prevent CWE-1288.
Security testing can detect consistency flaws but does not prevent them at design time.