EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.6%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
The following software releases have been updated to resolve this specific issue: Junos OS: 20.4R3-S8*, 21.2R3-S6*, 21.3R3-S5*, 21.4R3-S4, 22.1R3-S4*, 22.2R3-S2*, 22.3R2-S2*, 22.3R3-S1*, 22.4R2-S1*, 22.4R3*, 23.1R1-S1*,… (from the CVE record's solution, Juniper Networks, Inc.) — apply it.
An Improper Input Validation vulnerability in the Routing Protocol Daemon (rpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an unauthenticated, network-based attacker to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). When a BGP update message is received over an established BGP session, and that message contains a specific, optional transitive attribute, this session will be torn down with an update message error. This issue cannot propagate beyond an affected system as the processing error occurs as soon as the update is received. This issue is exploitable remotely as the respective attribute can propagate through unaffected systems and intermediate AS (if any). Continuous receipt of a BGP update containing this attribute will create a sustained Denial of Service (DoS) condition. Some customers have experienced these BGP session flaps which prompted Juniper SIRT to release this advisory out of cycle before fixed releases are widely available as there is an effective workaround.
This issue affects:
Juniper Networks Junos OS
15.1R1 and later versions prior to 20.4R3-S8;
21.1 version 21.1R1 and later versions prior to 21.2R3-S6;
21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3-S5;
21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3-S4;
22.1 versions prior to 22.1R3-S4;
22.2 versions prior to 22.2R3-S2;
22.3 versions prior to 22.3R2-S2, 22.3R3-S1;
22.4 versions prior to 22.4R2-S1, 22.4R3;
23.1 versions prior to 23.1R1-S1, 23.1R2.
Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved
All versions prior to 20.4R3-S8-EVO;
21.1 version 21.1R1-EVO and later versions prior to 21.2R3-S6-EVO;
21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3-S5-EVO;
21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3-S4-EVO;
22.1 versions prior to 22.1R3-S4-EVO;
22.2 versions prior to 22.2R3-S2-EVO;
22.3 versions prior to 22.3R2-S2-EVO, 22.3R3-S1-EVO;
22.4 versions prior to 22.4R2-S1-EVO, 22.4R3-EVO;
23.1 versions prior to 23.1R1-S1-EVO, 23.1R2-EVO.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-20). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
The following software releases have been updated to resolve this specific issue: Junos OS: 20.4R3-S8*, 21.2R3-S6*, 21.3R3-S5*, 21.4R3-S4, 22.1R3-S4*, 22.2R3-S2*, 22.3R2-S2*, 22.3R3-S1*, 22.4R2-S1*, 22.4R3*, 23.1R1-S1*,… (from the CVE record's solution, Juniper Networks, Inc.). Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it