CVE-2014-3825
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 · uneditedThe Juniper SRX Series devices with Junos 11.4 before 11.4R12-S4, 12.1X44 before 12.1X44-D40, 12.1X45 before 12.1X45-D30, 12.1X46 before 12.1X46-D25, and 12.1X47 before 12.1X47-D10, when an Application Layer Gateway (ALG) is enabled, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (flowd crash) via a crafted packet.
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 · moderate confidenceThe vulnerability exists in the Application Layer Gateway (ALG) component of Juniper SRX Series devices running affected Junos versions (11.4 before 11.4R12-S4, 12.1X44 before 12.1X44-D40, and similar). A remote attacker can send specially crafted packets to trigger a flowd daemon crash, resulting in denial of service. The issue stems from improper input validation or handling of malformed packets within the ALG processing path when ALG is enabled.
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= 12.1x46= 12.1x47all 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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.
-
Identify device modelRun 'show chassis hardware' or check 'show system information' to confirm the device is a Juniper SRX Series model (SRX100, SRX110, SRX1400, SRX210, SRX220, SRX240, or SRX3400)Affected if Device is any SRX model listed in the affected products
-
Check Junos versionRun 'show version' to obtain the installed Junos version, then compare it against the affected ranges: 11.4 before 11.4R12-S4, 12.1X44 before 12.1X44-D40, or any version of 12.1X45, 12.1X46, or 12.1X47Affected if Installed Junos version falls within any of the affected version ranges listed in the CVE
-
Verify ALG statusRun 'show security alg' to check whether Application Layer Gateway services are enabled on the deviceAffected if ALG is enabled (any ALG service such as FTP, SIP, RTSP, or others is in active state)
-
Confirm ALG configurationRun 'show configuration security alg' to review the ALG configuration in the security policy settingsAffected if ALG is explicitly configured or allowed in any security policy
The device is affected if it is an SRX Series model running a vulnerable Junos version AND has ALG enabled, as the flaw only triggers when ALG processes specially crafted packets.
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 the specified patched versions (11.4R12-S4 or later, 12.1X44-D40 or later, 12.1X45-D30 or later, 12.1X46-D25 or later, 12.1X47-D10 or later). If upgrading is not immediately feasible, consider disabling unused ALG services and implement firewall rules to limit exposure to untrusted networks.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-3825 — 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-2014-3825 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