CVE-2024-21595
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 the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE) of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows a network-based, unauthenticated attacker to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). If an attacker sends high rate of specific ICMP traffic to a device with VXLAN configured, this causes a deadlock of the PFE and results in the device becoming unresponsive. A manual restart will be required to recover the device. This issue only affects EX4100, EX4400, EX4600, QFX5000 Series devices. This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS * 21.4R3 versions earlier than 21.4R3-S4; * 22.1R3 versions earlier than 22.1R3-S3; * 22.2R2 versions earlier than 22.2R3-S1; * 22.3 versions earlier than 22.3R2-S2, 22.3R3; * 22.4 versions earlier than 22.4R2; * 23.1 versions earlier than 23.1R2.
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 confidenceImproper validation of syntactic correctness of input in the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE) of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows an unauthenticated network attacker to send high-rate specific ICMP traffic to devices with VXLAN configured, causing PFE deadlock and resulting in DoS. Manual restart required to recover.
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= 21.4= 22.1= 22.2= 22.3= 22.4= 23.1CVSS 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 the Junos OS versionRun 'show version' or 'show version detail' on the device CLIAffected if The version shown is any of: 21.4, 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, or 23.1 (any subversion within these releases)
-
Verify VXLAN configurationRun 'show configuration protocols vxlan' or 'show configuration | match vxlan' to check if VXLAN is configuredAffected if VXLAN protocol is actively configured on the device
-
Confirm device model is in affected seriesRun 'show chassis hardware' or 'show system information' to identify the hardware modelAffected if The device is an EX4100, EX4400, EX4600, or QFX5000 series switch
-
Check for PFE deadlock symptomsRun 'show pfe statistics error' and 'show chassis fpc pic-status' to verify PFE responsivenessAffected if PFE shows errors or FPC/PIC status indicates offline or unreachable state after ICMP traffic
The device is affected if it runs any 21.4, 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, or 23.1 Junos version, has VXLAN configured, is an EX4100/EX4400/EX4600/QFX5000 series, and has received high-rate ICMP traffic causing PFE deadlock.
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 · scopedUpgrade Junos OS to the fixed versions (21.4R3-S4 and later, 22.1R3-S3 and later, 22.2R3-S1 and later, 22.3R2-S2/22.3R3 and later, 22.4R2 and later, 23.1R2 and later) for affected EX4100, EX4400, EX4600, and QFX5000 Series devices.
Upgrade to one of: 21.4R3-S4 or later, 22.1R3-S3 or later, 22.2R3-S1 or later, 22.3R2-S2/22.3R3 or later, 22.4R2 or later, or 23.1R2 or later - choose the nearest stable release for your branch
- 1. Identify the exact Junos OS version currently running on the affected device using 'show version'
- 2. Determine the appropriate upgrade path based on current version (21.4R3 → 21.4R3-S4+, 22.1R3 → 22.1R3-S3+, 22.2R2 → 22.2R3-S1+, 22.3 → 22.3R2-S2 or 22.3R3+, 22.4 → 22.4R2+, 23.1 → 23.1R2+)
- 3. Download the fixed Junos OS software package from the Juniper Networks support portal
- 4. Upload the software package to the device using 'file copy' or USB transfer
- 5. Install the software upgrade using 'request system software add <package-name> reboot'
- 6. After reboot, verify the new version is running with 'show version' and confirm the vulnerability is resolved
- 7. Verify VXLAN functionality is operating normally after upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,728.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-21595 — 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-2024-21595 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