CVE-2014-6386
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 · uneditedJuniper Junos 11.4 before 11.4R8, 12.1X44 before 12.1X44-D35, 12.1X45 before 12.1X45-D25, 12.1X46 before 12.1X46-D20, 12.1X47 before 12.1X47-D10, 12.2 before 12.2R9, 12.3R2 before 12.3R2-S3, 12.3 before 12.3R3, 13.1 before 13.1R4, and 13.2 before 13.2R1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (assertion failure and rpd restart) via a crafted BGP FlowSpec prefix.
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 confidenceJuniper Junos contains a denial of service vulnerability in the BGP FlowSpec (Flow Specification) implementation. Remote attackers can send a specially crafted BGP FlowSpec prefix that triggers an assertion failure, causing the routing protocol daemon (rpd) to restart and disrupt routing services.
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= 12.1x44= 12.1x45= 12.1x46= 12.1x47= 12.2= 12.3= 13.1= 13.2CVSS 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
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
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 Junos versionRun 'show version' or 'request system version' command on the Juniper deviceAffected if Version matches 11.4, 12.1x44, 12.1x45, 12.1x46, 12.1x47, 12.2, 12.3, 13.1, or 13.2 (without the fixed updates)
-
Verify BGP FlowSpec configurationRun 'show configuration protocols bgp' and look for 'flow-spec-validation' or 'family inet flow' under the BGP hierarchyAffected if BGP FlowSpec is enabled under the BGP protocol configuration
-
Confirm BGP peer statusRun 'show bgp summary' to see if BGP peers are established and accepting connectionsAffected if BGP peers are up and exchanging routes, particularly if FlowSpec prefixes can be received from untrusted peers
Device is affected if running a listed Junos version AND BGP FlowSpec is enabled with BGP peers that could send malicious FlowSpec prefixes.
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 fixed versions: 11.4R8, 12.1X44-D35, 12.1X45-D25, 12.1X46-D20, 12.1X47-D10, 12.2R9, 12.3R3 (or 12.3R2-S3+), 13.1R4, or 13.2R1 and later. Consider disabling BGP FlowSpec if upgrades are not immediately feasible.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-6386 — 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-2014-6386 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