Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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:AmberSummary
CVE-2026-33791 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 50th 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 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-2026-21207
Vulnerability Data
An OS Command Injection vulnerability in the CLI processing of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows a local, high-privileged attacker executing specific, crafted CLI commands to inject arbitrary shell commands as root, leading to a complete compromise…
more
of the system. Certain 'set system' commands, when executed with crafted arguments, are not properly sanitized, allowing for arbitrary shell injection. These shell commands are executed as root, potentially allowing for complete control of the vulnerable system. This issue affects: Junos OS: * all versions before 22.4R3-S8, * from 23.2 before 23.2R2-S5, * from 23.4 before 23.4R2-S7, * from 24.2 before 24.2R2-S2, * from 24.4 before 24.4R2, * from 25.2 before 25.2R2; Junos OS Evolved: * all versions before 22.4R3-S8-EVO, * from 23.2 before 23.2R2-S5-EVO, * from 23.4 before 23.4R2-S7-EVO, * from 24.2 before 24.2R2-S2-EVO, * from 24.4 before 24.4R2-EVO, * from 25.2 before 25.2R1-S1-EVO, 25.2R2-EVO.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
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's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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 and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.