CVE-2026-33797
Juniper Junos 25.2
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:C/RE:M/U:GreenSummary
CVE-2026-33797 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 6th 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.
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-2026-33797 is an Improper Input Validation vulnerability (CWE-20) in the BGP implementation of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved. It affects Junos OS versions 25.2 prior to 25.2R2, as well as Junos OS Evolved versions 25.2-EVO prior to 25.2R2-EVO; earlier versions before 25.2R1 or 25.2R1-EVO respectively are not impacted. Both eBGP and iBGP sessions are vulnerable, as are IPv4 and IPv6 unicast traffic. The issue has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.4 (AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H).
An unauthenticated attacker with adjacent network access can exploit this vulnerability by sending a specifically crafted but genuine BGP packet over an already established BGP session. This causes the targeted BGP session to reset, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS) condition. Repeated transmission of the packet sustains the DoS, potentially disrupting routing operations for the affected session without impacting other sessions or services.
Juniper Networks advisories JSA107850, available at https://kb.juniper.net/JSA107850 and https://supportportal.juniper.net/JSA107850, detail the issue and recommend upgrading to fixed releases such as Junos OS 25.2R2 or later and Junos OS Evolved 25.2R2-EVO or later. No additional workarounds are specified in the provided information.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-21208
Vulnerability Data
An Improper Input Validation vulnerability in Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an unauthenticated, adjacent attacker, sending a specific genuine BGP packet in an already established BGP session to reset only that session causing a Denial of…
more
Service (DoS). An attacker repeatedly sending the packet will sustain the Denial of Service (DoS).This issue affects Junos OS: * 25.2 versions before 25.2R2 This issue does not affect Junos OS versions before 25.2R1. This issue affects Junos OS Evolved: * 25.2-EVO versions before 25.2R2-EVO This issue does not affect Junos OS Evolved versions before 25.2R1-EVO. eBGP and iBGP are affected. IPv4 and IPv6 are affected.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
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 and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20