CVE-2016-4922
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 · uneditedCertain combinations of Junos OS CLI commands and arguments have been found to be exploitable in a way that can allow unauthorized access to the operating system. This may allow any user with permissions to run these CLI commands the ability to achieve elevated privileges and gain complete control of the device. Affected releases are Juniper Networks Junos OS 11.4 prior to 11.4R13-S3; 12.1X46 prior to 12.1X46-D60; 12.1X47 prior to 12.1X47-D45; 12.3 prior to 12.3R12; 12.3X48 prior to 12.3X48-D35; 13.2 prior to 13.2R9; 13.3 prior to 13.3R4-S11, 13.3R9; 14.1 prior to 14.1R4-S12, 14.1R7; 14.1X53 prior to 14.1X53-D28, 14.1X53-D40; 14.1X55 prior to 14.1X55-D35; 14.2 prior to 14.2R3-S10, 14.2R4-S7, 14.2R5; 15.1 prior to 15.1F4, 15.1R3; 15.1X49 prior to 15.1X49-D60; 15.1X53 prior to 15.1X53-D57, 15.1X53-D70.
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 local privilege escalation vulnerability in Juniper Junos OS allows authenticated CLI users to execute specially crafted command combinations that bypass normal permission boundaries, achieving root-level access and complete device control.
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= 11.4r13= 12.1x46= 12.1x47= 12.3= 12.3x48= 13.2= 13.3= 14.1= 14.1x53= 14.1x55= 14.2CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 the Junos OS versionExecute the CLI command 'show version' or 'show version detail' to display the installed Junos OS versionAffected if The displayed version matches any of these: 11.4, 11.4r13, 12.1x46, 12.1x47, 12.3, 12.3x48, 13.2, 13.3, 14.1, 14.1x53, 14.1x55, or 14.2
-
Confirm CLI access levelVerify that the user account in question has authenticated CLI access to the deviceAffected if The user has any level of authenticated CLI access on an affected Junos version
-
Check for root access patternsReview system logs and audit records for any instances where the specific user executed unusual command combinations that could indicate privilege escalation attemptsAffected if Evidence exists of command patterns that bypass normal permission boundaries resulting in root-level access
A system is affected if it runs any Junos OS version matching 11.4, 11.4r13, 12.1x46, 12.1x47, 12.3, 12.3x48, 13.2, 13.3, 14.1, 14.1x53, 14.1x55, or 14.2 AND has authenticated CLI users who could exploit this local privilege escalation vulnerability.
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 dataApply the vendor-supplied patches for affected Junos OS versions (11.4R13-S3, 12.1X46-D60, 12.1X47-D45, 12.3R12, 12.3X48-D35, 13.2R9, 13.3R4-S11/13.3R9, 14.1R4-S12/14.1R7, 14.1X53-D40, 14.1X55-D35, 14.2R5, 15.1F4/15.1R3, 15.1X49-D60, 15.1X53-D70).
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-4922 — 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-2016-4922 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