CVE-2019-0019
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 · uneditedWhen BGP tracing is enabled an incoming BGP message may cause the Junos OS routing protocol daemon (rpd) process to crash and restart. While rpd restarts after a crash, repeated crashes can result in an extended DoS condition. Affected releases are Juniper Networks Junos OS: 16.1 versions prior to 16.1R7-S4, 16.1R7-S5; 16.2 versions prior to 16.2R2-S9, 16.2R3; 17.1 versions prior to 17.1R3; 17.2 versions prior to 17.2R3-S1; 17.3 versions prior to 17.3R3-S3, 17.3R3-S4, 17.3R4; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R1-S7, 17.4R2-S3, 17.4R2-S4, 17.4R3; 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R2-S4, 18.1R3-S4, 18.1R4; 18.2 versions prior to 18.2R2-S2, 18.2R2-S3, 18.2R3; 18.2X75 versions prior to 18.2X75-D40; 18.3 versions prior to 18.3R1-S3, 18.3R2; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R1-S2, 18.4R2. This issue does not affect Junos releases prior to 16.1R1.
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 confidenceWhen BGP tracing is enabled on affected Juniper Junos OS devices, a specially crafted incoming BGP message triggers a crash in the routing protocol daemon (rpd), causing denial of service through repeated process restarts.
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= 16.1= 16.2= 17.1= 17.2= 17.3= 17.4= 18.1= 18.2x75= 18.3= 18.4CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Confirm Junos OS versionExecute 'show version' on the device CLI and note the installed Junos OS release numberAffected if The installed version matches any of these: 16.1, 16.2, 17.1, 17.2, 17.3, 17.4, 18.1, 18.2x75, 18.3, or 18.4
-
Verify BGP tracing is enabledEnter configuration mode and check for 'traceoptions' under the BGP protocol configuration using 'show configuration protocols bgp' or by reviewing the BGP neighbor or group configuration for trace optionsAffected if BGP tracing (traceoptions) is configured and enabled under any BGP peer or group
-
Check for rpd crash historyUse 'show system crash' or 'show system core-dumps' to review recent routing protocol daemon crashesAffected if Recent rpd crashes are present in the crash logs, especially correlated with BGP message processing
A device is affected if it runs an affected Junos version listed above AND has BGP tracing enabled, as the vulnerability only triggers when BGP tracing processes a specially crafted BGP message.
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 to a patched Junos OS version as specified in the advisory, or disable BGP tracing if an upgrade is not immediately feasible.
- 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-2019-0019 — 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-2019-0019 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