CVE-2014-0612
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in Juniper Junos before 11.4R10-S1, before 11.4R11, 12.1X44 before 12.1X44-D26, 12.1X44 before 12.1X44-D30, 12.1X45 before 12.1X45-D20, and 12.1X46 before 12.1X46-D10, when Dynamic IPsec VPN is configured, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (new Dynamic VPN connection failures and CPU and disk consumption) via unknown vectors.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceA denial of service vulnerability in Juniper Junos when Dynamic IPsec VPN is configured allows remote attackers to cause new Dynamic VPN connection failures and excessive CPU and disk consumption via unspecified vectors.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 11.4= 12.1= 12.1x44= 12.1x45= 12.1x46all versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check Junos software versionExecute 'show version' or 'show version detail' on the device CLI and note the installed Junos versionAffected if Version is 11.4, 12.1, 12.1X44, 12.1X45, or 12.1X46 (exact versions)
-
Identify SRX hardware modelExecute 'show chassis hardware' or 'show version' to identify the device modelAffected if Model is Srx100, Srx110, Srx210, Srx220, Srx240, Srx550, or Srx650 (any version)
-
Verify Dynamic IPsec VPN is configuredExecute 'show configuration | match dynamic-vpn' or review the full VPN configuration for dynamic IPsec VPN settingsAffected if Dynamic IPsec VPN feature is enabled in the configuration
The environment is affected if the device is running an affected Junos version (11.4, 12.1, 12.1X44/45/46) or is an SRX model (Srx100 through Srx650) AND has Dynamic IPsec VPN configured.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade Junos to version 11.4R10-S1, 11.4R11, 12.1X44-D30, 12.1X45-D20, 12.1X46-D10 or later. If immediate patching is not feasible, consider disabling Dynamic IPsec VPN or implementing rate limiting on VPN connections as a temporary mitigation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-0612 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2014-0612 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data