CVE-2020-1656
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 · uneditedThe DHCPv6 Relay-Agent service, part of the Juniper Enhanced jdhcpd daemon shipped with Juniper Networks Junos OS has an Improper Input Validation vulnerability which will result in a Denial of Service (DoS) condition when a DHCPv6 client sends a specific DHPCv6 message allowing an attacker to potentially perform a Remote Code Execution (RCE) attack on the target device. Continuous receipt of the specific DHCPv6 client message will result in an extended Denial of Service (DoS) condition. If adjacent devices are also configured to relay DHCP packets, and are not affected by this issue and simply transparently forward unprocessed client DHCPv6 messages, then the attack vector can be a Network-based attack, instead of an Adjacent-device attack. No other DHCP services are affected. Receipt of the packet without configuration of the DHCPv6 Relay-Agent service, will not result in exploitability of this issue. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS: 12.3 versions prior to 12.3R12-S15; 12.3X48 versions prior to 12.3X48-D95; 14.1X53 versions prior to 14.1X53-D53; 15.1 versions prior to 15.1R7-S6; 15.1X49 versions prior to 15.1X49-D200; 15.1X53 versions prior to 15.1X53-D593; 16.1 versions prior to 16.1R7-S7; 16.2 versions prior to 16.2R2-S11; 17.1 versions prior to 17.1R2-S11, 17.1R3-S2; 17.2 versions prior to 17.2R3-S3; 17.2X75 versions prior to 17.2X75-D44; 17.3 versions prior to 17.3R3-S7; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R2-S9, 17.4R3; 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R3-S9; 18.2 versions prior to 18.2R2-S6, 18.2R3-S2; 18.2X75 versions prior to 18.2X75-D12, 18.2X75-D33, 18.2X75-D435, 18.2X75-D60; 18.3 versions prior to 18.3R1-S7, 18.3R2-S3, 18.3R3-S1; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R1-S5, 18.4R2-S3, 18.4R3; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R1-S4, 19.1R2; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R1-S3, 19.2R2; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R2.
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 confidenceThe DHCPv6 Relay-Agent service (jdhcpd daemon) in Juniper Junos OS contains an improper input validation vulnerability. A remote attacker can send a specifically crafted DHCPv6 message to cause a denial of service condition, and potentially achieve remote code execution. The attack requires the DHCPv6 Relay-Agent service to be configured on the target device.
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= 12.3x48= 14.1x53= 15.1= 15.1x49= 15.1x53= 16.1= 16.2= 17.1= 17.2= 17.2x75= 17.3CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/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.
-
Verify DHCPv6 Relay-Agent configurationRun 'show configuration protocols dhcpv6' or 'show configuration forwarding-options helpers dhcpv6' to check if DHCPv6 relay is configuredAffected if DHCPv6 Relay-Agent is configured in the device configuration (the attack requires this service to be enabled)
-
Confirm Junos OS versionRun 'show version' to display the installed Junos OS versionAffected if The installed version matches any of the following: 12.3, 12.3x48, 14.1x53, 15.1, 15.1x49, 15.1x53, 16.1, 16.2, 17.1, 17.2, 17.2x75, or 17.3
-
Check if jdhcpd daemon is runningRun 'show system processes extensive | match jdhcpd' or 'ps aux | grep jdhcpd' to see if the DHCPv6 Relay-Agent daemon is actively runningAffected if The jdhcpd process is running on the device
You are affected if your Junos OS version is one of the listed affected versions AND the DHCPv6 Relay-Agent service is configured and running on your device.
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 vendor-supplied Junos OS patches for the specific version running on the device. If the DHCPv6 Relay-Agent service is not required, disable it to eliminate the attack surface. Ensure adjacent network devices are also patched to prevent them from transparently forwarding malicious DHCPv6 messages.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-1656 — 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-2020-1656 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