CVE-2017-2315
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 Juniper Networks EX Series Ethernet Switches running affected Junos OS versions, a vulnerability in IPv6 processing has been discovered that may allow a specially crafted IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) packet destined to an EX Series Ethernet Switch to cause a slow memory leak. A malicious network-based packet flood of these crafted IPv6 NDP packets may eventually lead to resource exhaustion and a denial of service. The affected Junos OS versions are: 12.3 prior to 12.3R12-S4, 12.3R13; 13.3 prior to 13.3R10; 14.1 prior to 14.1R8-S3, 14.1R9; 14.1X53 prior ro 14.1X53-D12, 14.1X53-D40; 14.1X55 prior to 14.1X55-D35; 14.2 prior to 14.2R6-S4, 14.2R7-S6, 14.2R8; 15.1 prior to 15.1R5; 16.1 before 16.1R3; 16.2 before 16.2R1-S3, 16.2R2. 17.1R1 and all subsequent releases have a resolution for this vulnerability.
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 memory leak vulnerability in Juniper EX Series switches exists in the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery processing code. Specially crafted IPv6 ND packets destined to the switch cause memory allocation without proper deallocation, leading to gradual memory exhaustion and eventual 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= 12.3= 13.3= 14.1= 14.1x53= 14.1x55= 14.2= 15.1= 16.1= 16.2= 17.1CVSS 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
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/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 device modelRun 'show chassis hardware' or check the device label to confirm it is a Juniper EX Series switchAffected if Device is an EX Series switch (or other affected Junos-based product)
-
Check Junos OS versionRun 'show version' to obtain the installed Junos versionAffected if Version is 12.3, 13.3, 14.1, 14.1x53, 14.1x55, 14.2, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, or 17.1 (any build within these release lines)
-
Verify IPv6 is enabledRun 'show ipv6 global' or check 'show configuration protocols ipv6'Affected if IPv6 protocol is enabled on the switch
-
Check for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery activityRun 'show ipv6 neighbor' to list learned IPv6 neighborsAffected if IPv6 ND entries exist, indicating active ND processing on the switch
The switch is affected if it runs any Junos version 12.3 through 17.1 AND has IPv6 enabled with active Neighbor Discovery processing.
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 version 17.1R1 or later, or to one of the specified patched versions (12.3R12-S4+, 13.3R10+, 14.1R8-S3+, 14.1X53-D12+, 14.1X55-D35+, 14.2R6-S4+, 15.1R5+, 16.1R3+, 16.2R1-S3+). As a temporary mitigation, consider disabling IPv6 on vulnerable interfaces if not required.
- 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-2017-2315 — 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-2017-2315 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