CVE-2019-0002
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 EX2300 and EX3400 series, stateless firewall filter configuration that uses the action 'policer' in combination with other actions might not take effect. When this issue occurs, the output of the command: show pfe filter hw summary will not show the entry for: RACL group Affected releases are Junos OS on EX2300 and EX3400 series: 15.1X53 versions prior to 15.1X53-D590; 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R3; 18.2 versions prior to 18.2R2. This issue affect both IPv4 and IPv6 firewall filter.
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 confidenceOn Juniper EX2300 and EX3400 series switches, stateless firewall filters using the 'policer' action combined with other actions fail to take effect. The hardware filter entries do not appear in 'show pfe filter hw summary' output for RACL groups, affecting both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic. This is a logic bug in how Junos programs the hardware filter tables when multiple actions are present.
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= 15.1x53= 18.1= 18.2CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Confirm device model is EX2300 or EX3400Run 'show chassis hardware' or 'show version' to identify the switch modelAffected if Device is not an EX2300 or EX3400 series switch - the vulnerability only affects these models
-
Check installed Junos versionRun 'show version' and compare the firmware version against the affected releases (15.1x53, 18.1, 18.2 series)Affected if Junos version falls within 15.1x53, 18.1, or 18.2 release families prior to the fixed versions (15.1X53-D590, 18.1R3, 18.2R2)
-
Identify firewall filters using policer actionRun 'show firewall' and review filter configurations for 'policer' action statements; examine filter terms with 'then policer' combined with additional actions like 'accept', 'reject', or 'count'Affected if No firewall filters with policer action combined with other actions exist - the bug only triggers when policer is used together with other actions in a filter term
-
Verify hardware filter entry programmingRun 'show pfe filter hw summary' and check if RACL group filter entries appear in the output for IPv4 and IPv6 trafficAffected if Hardware filter entries for RACL groups are missing from 'show pfe filter hw summary' output despite filter configuration being present
You are affected if you have an EX2300 or EX3400 switch running a vulnerable Junos version (15.1x53, 18.1, or 18.2 series) AND you have configured stateless firewall filters that combine a policer action with other actions in the same filter term.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade Junos OS to version 15.1X53-D590, 18.1R3, 18.2R2 or later. Before upgrade, verify current filter configurations and plan maintenance window as upgrade will cause network interruption.
15.1X53-D590 or later (15.1X53 branch); 18.1R3 or later (18.1 branch); 18.2R2 or later (18.2 branch)
- 1. Identify current Junos OS version by running 'show version' on the device
- 2. Based on current version, determine the appropriate target release: for 15.1X53 branch upgrade to 15.1X53-D590 or later; for 18.1 branch upgrade to 18.1R3 or later; for 18.2 branch upgrade to 18.2R2 or later
- 3. Backup current configuration using 'request system configuration rescue save' or 'file copy' to external storage
- 4. Download the appropriate Junos software upgrade package from Juniper Networks support portal
- 5. Upgrade the device using 'request system software add <package-name>' with 'reboot' option
- 6. After reboot, verify the new Junos version with 'show version'
- 7. Confirm the firewall filter fix by running 'show pfe filter hw summary' and verifying RACL group entries now appear correctly
- 8. Test firewall filter behavior with policer action in combination with other actions
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-0002 — 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-2019-0002 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