dbcve.org
JunosOperating system · Juniper

CVE-2022-22223

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2022-10-18
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 15.1 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Public exploit Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
On QFX10000 Series devices using Juniper Networks Junos OS when configured as transit IP/MPLS penultimate hop popping (PHP) nodes with link aggregation group (LAG) interfaces, an Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input weakness allows an attacker sending certain IP packets to cause multiple interfaces in the LAG to detach causing a Denial of Service (DoS) condition. Continued receipt and processing of these packets will sustain the Denial of Service. This issue affects IPv4 and IPv6 packets. Packets of either type can cause and sustain the DoS event. These packets can be destined to the device or be transit packets. On devices such as the QFX10008 with line cards, line cards can be restarted to restore service. On devices such as the QFX10002 you can restart the PFE service, or reboot device to restore service. This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS on QFX10000 Series: All versions prior to 15.1R7-S11; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R2-S10, 18.4R3-S10; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R3-S8; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R3-S4; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R3-S5; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R2-S6, 19.4R3-S7; 20.1 versions prior to 20.1R3-S3; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R3-S3; 20.3 versions prior to 20.3R3-S2; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3-S4; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R3; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R3-S3; 21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3-S1. An indicator of compromise may be seen by issuing the command: request pfe execute target fpc0 command "show jspec pechip[3] registers ps l2_node 10" timeout 0 | refresh 1 | no-more and reviewing for backpressured output; for example: GOT: 0x220702a8 pe.ps.l2_node[10].pkt_cnt 00000076 GOT: 0x220702b4 pe.ps.l2_node[10].backpressured 00000002 <<<< STICKS HERE and requesting detail on the pepic wanio: request pfe execute target fpc0 command "show pepic 0 wanio-info" timeout 0 | no-more | match xe-0/0/0:2 GOT: 3 xe-0/0/0:2 10 6 3 0 1 10 189 10 0x6321b088 <<< LOOK HERE as well as looking for tail drops looking at the interface queue, for example: show interfaces queue xe-0/0/0:2 resulting in: Transmitted: Total-dropped packets: 1094137 0 pps << LOOK HERE

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

A detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.

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
JunosOperating system
Affected:< 15.1= 15.1= 18.4= 19.1= 19.2= 19.3= 19.4= 20.1= 20.2= 20.3= 20.4= 21.1

CVSS 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

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 15.1 or later
Fixed in 15.1
Recommended fix High confidence

Upgrade to the fixed release for your branch: 15.1R7-S11, 18.4R2-S10, 18.4R3-S10, 19.1R3-S8, 19.2R3-S4, 19.3R3-S5, 19.4R2-S6, 19.4R3-S7, 20.1R3-S3, 20.2R3-S3, 20.3R3-S2, 20.4R3-S4, 21.1R3, 21.2R3-S3, or 21.3R3-S1

  1. 1. Identify the current Junos OS version running on the QFX10000 Series device using 'show version'
  2. 2. Determine the appropriate fixed version based on the current branch (15.1, 18.4, 19.1, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, 21.1, 21.2, or 21.3)
  3. 3. Download the corresponding fixed Junos OS release from the Juniper Networks support portal
  4. 4. Upload the new Junos OS image to the device using 'request system software add <package>'
  5. 5. Reboot the device to apply the new software using 'request system reboot'
  6. 6. After reboot, verify the new version is installed using 'show version'
  7. 7. Confirm the fix is applied by checking that the vulnerable LAG interface no longer detaches when processing crafted IP packets
Caveat Standard Junos OS upgrade considerations apply - ensure configuration backup before upgrade, and plan maintenance window as upgrade may require reboot

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

We can perform the upgrade in your staging environment and verify nothing breaks — typical engagement from $1,950. Get the upgrade done

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-22223 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-22223 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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