CVE-2020-1650
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 Junos MX Series with service card configured, receipt of a stream of specific packets may crash the MS-PIC component on MS-MIC or MS-MPC. By continuously sending these specific packets, an attacker can repeatedly bring down MS-PIC on MS-MIC/MS-MPC causing a prolonged Denial of Service. This issue affects MX Series devices using MS-PIC, MS-MIC or MS-MPC service cards with any service configured. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS on MX Series: 17.2R2-S7; 17.3R3-S4, 17.3R3-S5; 17.4R2-S4 and the subsequent SRs (17.4R2-S5, 17.4R2-S6, etc.); 17.4R3; 18.1R3-S3, 18.1R3-S4, 18.1R3-S5, 18.1R3-S6, 18.1R3-S7, 18.1R3-S8; 18.2R3, 18.2R3-S1, 18.2R3-S2; 18.3R2 and the SRs based on 18.3R2; 18.4R2 and the SRs based on 18.4R2; 19.1R1 and the SRs based on 19.1R1; 19.2R1 and the SRs based on 19.2R1; 19.3R1 and the SRs based on 19.3R1.
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 vulnerability in Juniper MX Series routers with MS-PIC, MS-MIC, or MS-MPC service cards allows an attacker to crash the service card component by sending a specific stream of packets. This causes a denial of service condition that can be repeatedly triggered for prolonged outages.
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= 17.2= 17.4= 18.1= 18.2= 18.3= 18.4= 19.1= 19.2= 19.3CVSS 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 MX Series router modelRun 'show chassis hardware' or 'show version' and look for 'MX' in the model name (e.g., MX240, MX480, MX960)Affected if Device is not an MX Series router - vulnerability does not apply
-
Check for installed service cardsRun 'show chassis hardware detail' or 'show chassis fpc' and examine the PIC/FPC inventory for MS-PIC, MS-MIC, or MS-MPC module typesAffected if No MS-PIC, MS-MIC, or MS-MPC service cards are present - vulnerability cannot be triggered
-
Verify Junos software versionRun 'show version' and note the Junos OS version number (e.g., 18.2R3-S2)Affected if Version matches exactly 17.2, 17.4, 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 18.4, 19.1, 19.2, or 19.3 (any build within these branches)
Affected if device is an MX Series router with an MS-PIC, MS-MIC, or MS-MPC service card running Junos version 17.2, 17.4, 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 18.4, 19.1, 19.2, or 19.3.
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 appropriate Junos OS patch for your version. If immediate patching is not possible, consider implementing traffic filtering to block the specific packet stream or temporarily disabling the service card if services are non-critical.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-1650 — 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-2020-1650 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