Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-57027

Juniper Junos ≤ 23.2

Published
09 July 2026
Modified
13 July 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 7.1
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS: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:X
EPSS Score 0.0027 19th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2026-57027 is a high-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Juniper Junos. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 19th 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

No EU or UK CSIRT advisories indexed for this CVE.

Vulnerability Data

A Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime vulnerability in the packet forwarding engine (pfe) of Juniper Networks Junos OS on specific EX Series devices allows an unauthenticated adjacent attacker to cause a Denial-of-Service (DoS).When sFlow is configured in a…

more

Virtual Chassis (VC) scenario with EX4100 Series or EX4400 Series devices, multicast traffic which is received on one VC member and sent out on another member leads to a memory leak and ultimately an FPC crash and restart. The leak can be monitored by watching the continuous increase of the buffer values in the output of: user@host> show chassis fpc This issue affects Junos OS on EX4100 Series and EX4400: * all versions before 23.2R2-S7, * 23.4 versions before 23.4R2-S7, * 24.2 versions before 24.2R2-S4, * 24.4 versions before 24.4R2.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1499 Endpoint Denial of Service Impact
Adversaries may perform Endpoint Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to degrade or block the availability of services to users.
T1499.003 Application Exhaustion Flood Impact
Adversaries may target resource intensive features of applications to cause a denial of service (DoS), denying availability to those applications.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-21599Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-22395Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2024-39536Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2025-52986Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2025-21595Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-28982Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2023-22406Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2024-21613Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2024-21611Same product: Juniper Junos
CVE-2024-39549Same product: Juniper Junos

Affected Assets

juniper
junos
23.2, 23.4, 24.2, 24.4 · ≤ 23.2

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, or runtime leak detection) directly finds missing deallocation.

Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate memory-management disciplines that avoid leaks at introduction.

Engineering principles applied during development can require explicit resource-release patterns that stop memory leaks from being coded.

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 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly enforce proper memory allocation/deallocation via coding standards, reviews, and tooling.

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.

finds

Security testing in development can detect unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.

prevents

Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.

finds

Capacity management may detect memory exhaustion symptoms but does not prevent the coding flaw.

References