CVE-2017-10610
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 · uneditedOn SRX Series devices, a crafted ICMP packet embedded within a NAT64 IPv6 to IPv4 tunnel may cause the flowd process to crash. Repeated crashes of the flowd process constitutes an extended denial of service condition for the SRX Series device. This issue only occurs if NAT64 is configured. Affected releases are Juniper Networks Junos OS 12.1X46 prior to 12.1X46-D71, 12.3X48 prior to 12.3X48-D55, 15.1X49 prior to 15.1X49-D100 on SRX Series. No other Juniper Networks products or platforms are affected by this issue.
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 SRX Series devices allows remote attackers to crash the flowd process by sending crafted ICMP packets within a NAT64 IPv6-to-IPv4 tunnel. The vulnerability only triggers when NAT64 is configured, and repeated crashes create an extended DoS condition.
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= 12.1x46= 12.3x48= 15.1x49CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 Junos versionRun 'show version' or 'show version detail' on the SRX device to obtain the exact Junos OS version and build numberAffected if The version matches or falls within the 12.1X46, 12.3X48, or 15.1X49 release families (specific vulnerable builds within these lines)
-
Verify NAT64 configurationRun 'show configuration | match nat64' or 'show nat64 configuration' to determine if NAT64 is enabledAffected if NAT64 is actively configured on the device - this is the required condition for the vulnerability to trigger
-
Confirm flowd process statusRun 'show system processes extensive | match flowd' or 'request system core-dumps' to check for recent flowd crashesAffected if The flowd process has crashed or generated core dumps, especially after processing ICMP traffic within a NAT64 tunnel
You are affected if your SRX runs a vulnerable Junos build within the 12.1X46, 12.3X48, or 15.1X49 families AND NAT64 is configured and actively processing traffic.
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 to the fixed releases: 12.1X46-D71 or later, 12.3X48-D55 or later, or 15.1X49-D100 or later. Until upgrade is possible, consider disabling NAT64 if operationally feasible.
- Consultation2.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-10610 — 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-2017-10610 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