CVE-2026-33801
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:X/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-2026-33801 is a high-severity Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions (CWE-754) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Service Stop (T1489); ranked at the 20th 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-2026-42702
Vulnerability Data
An Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions vulnerability in the routing protocol daemon (RPD) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an adjacent, unauthenticated attacker sending a specific BGP update over an established BGP session to…
more
cause a Denial-of-Service (DoS). Upon receipt of a specifically malformed non-inet/inet6 unicast BGP update, an RPD crash and restart is triggered, which will cause a complete service outage until routing has reconverged. The rpd crash occurs before the update can be readvertised, so there is no downstream propagation. This issue affects: * Junos OS versions 25.2 before 25.2R2; * Junos OS Evolved versions 25.2 before 25.2R2-EVO. This issue doesn't affect Junos OS versions before 25.2R1 nor Junos OS Evolved versions before 25.2R1-EVO.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 7 hardening rules · 2 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation explicitly exercises unusual conditions to find missing or incorrect checks.
Input validation directly requires checking for unexpected or malformed conditions before they propagate.
Security engineering principles include structured handling of edge cases and exceptions during design.
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 require proper checks and handling for exceptional conditions throughout the SDLC.
Runtime monitoring of software and environments can detect adverse events triggered by unhandled exceptional conditions.
Generating logs of exceptions and errors enables detection of improper handling of unusual conditions.
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 handling of error and exceptional conditions.
Logging can record unhandled exceptions but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Monitoring may detect symptoms of unhandled conditions but does not eliminate the root weakness.
Secure development life cycle mandates exception handling and input validation that directly prevent missing checks for unusual conditions.
Application security requirements explicitly call for handling of exceptional conditions and error paths.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require robust error and exception handling mechanisms.
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).
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-248574 YUM must be configured to prevent the installation of patches, service packs, device drivers, or OL 8 system components that have not been digitally signed using a certificate that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-754
- V-248575 OL 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-754
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271452 OL 9 must use a Linux Security Module configured to enforce limits on system services. prevents CWE-754