CVE-2024-39527
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 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor vulnerability in the command-line interface (CLI) of Juniper Networks Junos OS on SRX Series devices allows a local, low-privileged user with access to the Junos CLI to view the contents of protected files on the file system. Through the execution of crafted CLI commands, a user with limited permissions (e.g., a low privilege login class user) can access protected files that should not be accessible to the user. These files may contain sensitive information that can be used to cause further impact to the system. This issue affects Junos OS on SRX Series: * All versions before 21.4R3-S8, * 22.2 before 22.2R3-S5, * 22.3 before 22.3R3-S4, * 22.4 before 22.4R3-S4, * 23.2 before 23.2R2-S2, * 23.4 before 23.4R2.
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 low-privileged user with CLI access on SRX Series devices can bypass file permission restrictions through crafted Junos CLI commands, enabling unauthorized read access to protected system files that should be restricted even from limited-privilege accounts.
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= 21.4= 22.2= 22.3= 22.4= 23.2= 23.4CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 device modelRun 'show chassis hardware' or 'show version' command to confirm the device is a Junos SRX Series deviceAffected if The device is a SRX Series firewall
-
Determine the installed Junos versionRun 'show version' command and note the Junos OS version numberAffected if The installed version is < 21.4, 21.4, 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, 23.2, or 23.4
-
Verify CLI access for low-privilege accountsReview user accounts configured on the device using 'show system users' or 'show configuration system login' to identify accounts with operator or read-only privilege levelsAffected if Low-privilege user accounts (operator, read-only class) exist with CLI access
-
Test for unauthorized file accessAs a low-privilege user, attempt to read protected system files using crafted Junos CLI commands such as 'file show /var/etc/passwd' or similar file operations that should be restrictedAffected if A low-privilege user can read files that should require elevated privileges
A user is affected if they have a Junos SRX device running any of the listed affected versions and low-privilege CLI accounts can access protected system files.
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 · scoped21.4
Apply the vendor-supplied Junos OS patches for the affected versions (21.4R3-S8, 22.2R3-S5, 22.3R3-S4, 22.4R3-S4, 23.2R2-S2, 23.4R2 or later) following Juniper's upgrade procedures.
Upgrade to 21.4R3-S8 or later (for 21.4 branch), 22.2R3-S5 or later (for 22.2 branch), or 22.3R3-S4 or later (for 22.3 branch)
- 1. Identify the current Junos OS version running on the SRX Series device using 'show version' command
- 2. Determine the appropriate upgrade path based on your current version branch (21.4, 22.2, or 22.3)
- 3. Download the appropriate fixed release from Juniper Networks support portal: 21.4R3-S8, 22.2R3-S5, or 22.3R3-S4 or later
- 4. Transfer the upgrade package to the SRX device using SCP or USB
- 5. Initiate the software upgrade using 'request system software add <package-name>' command
- 6. Reboot the device using 'request system reboot' command to apply the new software
- 7. After reboot, verify the new version is installed using 'show version' and confirm the fix is applied
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-39527 — 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-2024-39527 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