CVE-2023-28985
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 Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input vulnerability in Intrusion Detection and Prevention (IDP) of Juniper Networks SRX Series and MX Series allows an unauthenticated, network-based attacker to cause Denial of Service (DoS). Continued receipt of this specific packet will cause a sustained Denial of Service condition. On all SRX Series and MX Series platforms, where IDP is enabled and a specific malformed SSL packet is received, the SSL detector crashes leading to an FPC core. This issue affects Juniper Networks SRX Series and MX Series prior to SigPack 3598. In order to identify the current SigPack version, following command can be used: user@junos# show security idp security-package-version
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 Networks SRX and MX Series IDP (Intrusion Detection and Prevention) allows an unauthenticated, network-based attacker to crash the SSL detector by sending a specific malformed SSL packet. This causes an FPC (Flex PIC Processor) core dump and results in denial of service, which becomes sustained with continued receipt of the malformed packets.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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.
-
Identify device model and OSRun 'show chassis hardware' or 'show version' to confirm the device is a Juniper SRX or MX Series running Junos.Affected if Device is an SRX or MX Series appliance running any Junos version.
-
Verify IDP license statusRun 'request system license' or 'show license' to check if the IDP license is installed and active.Affected if IDP license is installed - the vulnerability requires the IDP subsystem to be licensed and operational.
-
Confirm IDP policy is loadedRun 'show security idp status' to check if an IDP policy is loaded and the IDP detector is active.Affected if An IDP policy is applied and the detector is active - the malformed SSL packet must pass through IDP inspection for the crash to occur.
-
Check for recent FPC core dumpsRun 'show system core-dump' or check /var/tmp/ for FPC-related core files. Look for core dumps from 'ike' or 'mls' processes.Affected if Recent FPC core dumps exist, particularly following network traffic spikes - this indicates the vulnerability may have been triggered.
-
Verify IDP security package versionRun 'show security idp security-package-version' to display the installed SigPack version.Affected if The installed SigPack version is earlier than 3598, meaning the vulnerability is not patched at the signature level.
A user is affected if they have an SRX or MX device with an active IDP license and policy, and the IDP security package is below SigPack 3598, or if FPC core dumps have occurred without an obvious cause.
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 · scopedUpdate the IDP security package to SigPack 3598 or later using 'request security idp security-package install'. If immediate patching is not feasible, consider disabling IDP or implementing upstream network filtering to block malformed SSL traffic as a temporary workaround.
SigPack 3598 (IDP security package update)
- Check the current IDP SigPack version by running: show security idp security-package-version
- If the version is earlier than 3598, download and install the latest IDP security package from Juniper Networks
- Install the updated security package using the command: request security idp security-package install
- Verify the new version is installed by running: show security idp security-package-version
- Ensure the version shows 3598 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-28985 — 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-2023-28985 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