CVE-2023-22409
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 · uneditedAn Unchecked Input for Loop Condition vulnerability in a NAT library of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows a local authenticated attacker with low privileges to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). When an inconsistent "deterministic NAT" configuration is present on an SRX, or MX with SPC3 and then a specific CLI command is issued the SPC will crash and restart. Repeated execution of this command will lead to a sustained DoS. Such a configuration is characterized by the total number of port blocks being greater than the total number of hosts. An example for such configuration is: [ services nat source pool TEST-POOL address x.x.x.0/32 to x.x.x.15/32 ] [ services nat source pool TEST-POOL port deterministic block-size 1008 ] [ services nat source pool TEST-POOL port deterministic host address y.y.y.0/24] [ services nat source pool TEST-POOL port deterministic include-boundary-addresses] where according to the following calculation: 65536-1024=64512 (number of usable ports per IP address, implicit) 64512/1008=64 (number of port blocks per Nat IP) x.x.x.0/32 to x.x.x.15/32 = 16 (NAT IP addresses available in NAT pool) total port blocks in NAT Pool = 64 blocks per IP * 16 IPs = 1024 Port blocks host address y.y.y.0/24 = 256 hosts (with include-boundary-addresses) If the port block size is configured to be 4032, then the total port blocks are (64512/4032) * 16 = 256 which is equivalent to the total host addresses of 256, and the issue will not be seen. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS on SRX Series, and MX Series with SPC3: All versions prior to 19.4R3-S10; 20.1 version 20.1R1 and later versions; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R3-S6; 20.3 versions prior to 20.3R3-S6; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3-S5; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R3-S4; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R3-S3; 21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3-S3; 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3-S1; 22.1 versions prior to 22.1R2-S2, 22.1R3; 22.2 versions prior to 22.2R2.
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 local authenticated attacker with low privileges can cause denial of service on SRX Series or MX Series with SPC3 by issuing a specific CLI command when a deterministic NAT configuration has more port blocks than hosts (e.g., block-size 1008 with 16 NAT IPs and 256 hosts results in 1024 port blocks exceeding 256 hosts). The vulnerability stems from an unchecked loop condition in the NAT library that causes the SPC to crash and restart.
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< 19.4= 19.4= 20.1= 20.2= 20.3= 20.4= 21.1= 21.2= 21.3= 21.4= 22.1= 22.2CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Identify device model and hardwareRun 'show chassis hardware' or check device model. Confirm it is SRX Series or MX Series with SPC3 cards.Affected if Device is not SRX or MX Series with SPC3 hardware - vulnerability does not apply.
-
Check Junos software versionRun 'show version' to obtain the installed Junos version.Affected if Version is one of the affected versions: < 19.4, 19.4, 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 22.1, or 22.2.
-
Verify deterministic NAT is configuredRun 'show configuration | display set | match deterministic' or review NAT configuration in set format.Affected if No deterministic NAT configuration exists - vulnerability cannot be triggered.
-
Calculate port block to host ratioFrom the deterministic NAT configuration, identify: block-size value, number of NAT IP addresses, and host count. Compute: (block-size x number of NAT IPs). Compare to host count.Affected if The product of block-size and NAT IP count exceeds the host count (e.g., block-size 1008 with 16 NAT IPs = 1024 port blocks, but only 256 hosts).
A user is affected if they are running a vulnerable Junos version on SRX/MX with SPC3, have deterministic NAT configured, and the number of port blocks (block-size × NAT IPs) exceeds the number of hosts.
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 · scoped19.4
Apply Juniper software patches for affected versions (21.1R3-S4, 21.2R3-S3, 21.3R3-S3, 21.4R3-S1, 22.1R2-S2/22.1R3, 22.2R2 and later) or modify NAT configuration to ensure port blocks do not exceed host addresses (e.g., increase block-size to 4032).
Upgrade to 19.4R3-S10 or later (for 19.4 branch), or 20.2R3-S6 or later (for 20.2 branch), or 20.3R3-S6 or later (for 20.3 branch), or 20.4R3-S5 or later (for 20.4 branch), or 21.1R3-S4 or later (for 21.1 branch), or 21.2R3-S3 or later (for 21.2 branch), or 21.3R3-S3 or later (for 21.3 branch), or 2
- 1. Identify the currently running Junos OS version on the affected SRX Series or MX Series with SPC3 device
- 2. Review the deterministic NAT configuration on the device to confirm if it matches the vulnerable pattern (port blocks > hosts)
- 3. Plan for a maintenance window to perform the upgrade
- 4. Download the appropriate fixed Junos OS version from the Juniper Networks support portal
- 5. Upload the Junos OS upgrade package to the device
- 6. Reboot the device to apply the new Junos OS version
- 7. After upgrade, verify the device is functioning correctly and the NAT service is operational
- 8. Verify the new Junos OS version matches a fixed release: 19.4R3-S10 or later, 20.2R3-S6 or later, 20.3R3-S6 or later, 20.4R3-S5 or later, 21.1R3-S4 or later, 21.2R3-S3 or later, 21.3R3-S3 or later, 21.4R3-S1 or later, 22.1R2-S2/22.1R3 or later, or 22.2R2 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-22409 — 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-2023-22409 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