CVE-2016-1260
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 OS before 13.2X51-D36, 14.1X53 before 14.1X53-D25, and 15.2 before 15.2R1 on EX4300 series switches allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (network loop and bandwidth consumption) via unspecified vectors related to Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) traffic.
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 EX4300 switches running Junos OS versions before 13.2X51-D36, 14.1X53-D25, and 15.2R1 contain a vulnerability in Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) processing. Attackers can send crafted STP packets that cause a network loop, resulting in bandwidth consumption and denial of service.
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= 13.2x51= 14.1x53= 15.2CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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.
-
Determine the Junos OS versionExecute 'show version' on the EX4300 switch CLI to retrieve the installed Junos OS version stringAffected if The version shown is earlier than 13.2X51-D36, 14.1X53-D25, or 15.2R1
-
Confirm the EX4300 modelExecute 'show chassis hardware' to verify the device model is EX4300Affected if The device is an EX4300 switch
-
Check if STP is enabledExecute 'show spanning-tree bridge' or 'show protocols spanning-tree' to determine if Spanning Tree Protocol is active on any interfacesAffected if STP is enabled and running on the switch
The switch is affected if it is an EX4300 running a Junos version before 13.2X51-D36, 14.1X53-D25, or 15.2R1 AND has STP enabled on any interface.
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 OS on affected EX4300 switches to the fixed versions (13.2X51-D36, 14.1X53-D25, or 15.2R1 and later). Consider enabling BPDU guard or loop protect features on access ports as an additional layer of defense while planning the upgrade.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-1260 — 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-2016-1260 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