CVE-2024-30382
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 Handling of Exceptional Conditions vulnerability in the routing protocol daemon (rpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows a network-based, unauthenticated attacker to send a specific routing update, causing an rpd core due to memory corruption, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS). This issue can only be triggered when the system is configured for CoS-based forwarding (CBF) with a policy map containing a cos-next-hop-map action (see below). This issue affects: Junos OS: * all versions before 20.4R3-S10, * from 21.2 before 21.2R3-S8, * from 21.3 before 21.3R3, * from 21.4 before 21.4R3, * from 22.1 before 22.1R2; Junos OS Evolved: * all versions before 21.2R3-S8-EVO, * from 21.3 before 21.3R3-EVO, * from 21.4 before 21.4R3-EVO, * from 22.1 before 22.1R2-EVO.
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 confidenceMemory corruption vulnerability in Juniper Networks rpd (routing protocol daemon) where an unauthenticated network attacker can send a specific routing update on systems configured with CoS-based forwarding (CBF) containing a cos-next-hop-map action, triggering memory corruption that causes rpd to crash and result in Denial of Service.
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< 20.4= 20.4= 21.2= 21.3= 21.4= 22.1< 21.2= 21.2= 21.3= 21.4= 22.1CVSS 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 versionRun 'show version' or 'request system version' to obtain the installed Junos OS or Junos OS Evolved versionAffected if The installed version matches one of the affected versions: Junos < 20.4, = 20.4, = 21.2, = 21.3, = 21.4, = 22.1 or Junos OS Evolved < 21.2, = 21.2, = 21.3, = 21.4, = 22.1
-
Check if CoS-based forwarding (CBF) is configuredRun 'show configuration class-of-service forwarding-options' or inspect the active CBF configuration via 'show configuration | match forwarding-options'Affected if CBF forwarding-options configuration exists on the device
-
Verify if cos-next-hop-map action is presentWithin the CBF forwarding-options configuration, look for 'cos-next-hop-map' statements - use 'show configuration class-of-service forwarding-options | find cos-next-hop-map' or similarAffected if A cos-next-hop-map is defined within the CBF configuration
A system is affected if it runs a vulnerable Junos version AND has CoS-based forwarding (CBF) configured with a cos-next-hop-map action, as the attacker would need to send a routing update to trigger the memory corruption in rpd.
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 · scoped20.421.2
Upgrade Junos OS or Junos OS Evolved to the fixed versions specified in the advisory. As a workaround, if CBF with cos-next-hop-map is not required, remove that configuration.
Junos OS: 20.4R3-S10, 21.2R3-S8, 21.3R3, 21.4R3, or 22.1R2 (or later) | Junos OS Evolved: 21.2R3-S8-EVO, 21.3R3-EVO, 21.4R3-EVO, or 22.1R2-EVO (or later)
- 1. Identify the current Junos OS or Junos OS Evolved version running on the device using 'show version'
- 2. Confirm the device is configured for CoS-based forwarding (CBF) with a policy map containing a cos-next-hop-map action
- 3. Schedule a maintenance window for the upgrade as this will require a system restart
- 4. Download the appropriate fixed Junos OS release from Juniper Networks support portal for your hardware platform
- 5. For Junos OS: upgrade to 20.4R3-S10, 21.2R3-S8, 21.3R3, 21.4R3, or 22.1R2 (or later) depending on your release train
- 6. For Junos OS Evolved: upgrade to 21.2R3-S8-EVO, 21.3R3-EVO, 21.4R3-EVO, or 22.1R2-EVO (or later) depending on your release train
- 7. Transfer the Junos upgrade package to the device and verify checksum integrity
- 8. Execute the upgrade using 'request system software add <package>' with appropriate options for your platform
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-30382 — 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-2024-30382 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