CVE-2024-30398
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 Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE) of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows an unauthenticated, network-based attacker to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). When a high amount of specific traffic is received on a SRX4600 device, due to an error in internal packet handling, a consistent rise in CPU memory utilization occurs. This results in packet drops in the traffic and eventually the PFE crashes. A manual reboot of the PFE will be required to restore the device to original state. This issue affects Junos OS: * 21.2 before 21.2R3-S7, * 21.4 before 21.4R3-S6, * 22.1 before 22.1R3-S5, * 22.2 before 22.2R3-S3, * 22.3 before 22.3R3-S2, * 22.4 before 22.4R3, * 23.2 before 23.2R1-S2, 23.2R2.
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 memory buffer handling vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE) of Juniper Junos OS on SRX4600 devices allows an unauthenticated attacker to cause denial of service. When the device receives high volumes of specific traffic, an internal packet handling error causes progressive CPU memory utilization increases, leading to packet drops and ultimately PFE crash requiring manual reboot.
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= 21.2= 21.4= 22.1= 22.2= 22.3= 22.4= 23.2CVSS 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
- 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 modelRun 'show chassis hardware' or 'show system information' to confirm the device is an SRX4600Affected if Device model is not SRX4600 - this CVE only affects SRX4600 devices
-
Check Junos OS versionRun 'show version' or 'show system version' to retrieve the installed Junos OS versionAffected if Version matches 21.2, 21.4, 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, or 23.2 (any point release within these branches)
-
Verify PFE status and CPU utilizationRun 'show chassis fpc pic-status' and 'show system processes extensive' to check PFE status and CPU usage on the PICAffected if PFE shows offline or CPU utilization is abnormally high with progressive increase under traffic load
-
Check for packet drops and errorsRun 'show interfaces statistics' and 'show pfe statistics traffic' to look for increasing packet drop counters on ingress interfacesAffected if Packet drops are increasing significantly on one or more interfaces without corresponding traffic policy matches
Device is affected if it is an SRX4600 running Junos version 21.2, 21.4, 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, or 23.2 and is experiencing high CPU utilization or packet drops under specific traffic patterns
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 · scopedApply the vendor-supplied patches for the respective version branches (21.2R3-S7+, 21.4R3-S6+, 22.1R3-S5+, 22.2R3-S3+, 22.3R3-S2+, 22.4R3+, 23.2R1-S2+/23.2R2+). Until patching is feasible, consider implementing traffic rate limiting or access controls to reduce exposure to the specific attack vector.
Upgrade to Junos OS 22.4R3 or later (or the equivalent S-series release for your branch: 21.2R3-S7, 21.4R3-S6, 22.1R3-S5, 22.2R3-S3, 22.3R3-S2, 23.2R1-S2 or later)
- 1. Identify the current Junos OS version running on the SRX4600 device using 'show version'
- 2. Schedule a maintenance window for the upgrade procedure
- 3. Back up the current device configuration using 'request system configuration rescue save'
- 4. Download the appropriate fixed Junos OS release from Juniper Networks (e.g., 22.4R3 or later)
- 5. Upload the Junos upgrade image to the device using 'request system software add' with the validate option
- 6. Reboot the device using 'request system reboot'
- 7. After reboot, verify the new Junos version is running with 'show version'
- 8. Confirm the PFE is operational using 'show chassis fpc' and 'show pfe statistics'
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-30398 — 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-2024-30398 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