CVE-2025-30653
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 Expired Pointer Dereference vulnerability in Routing Protocol Daemon (rpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an unauthenticated, adjacent attacker to cause Denial of Service (DoS).On all Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved platforms, when an MPLS Label-Switched Path (LSP) is configured with node-link-protection and transport-class, and an LSP flaps, rpd crashes and restarts. Continuous flapping of LSP can cause a sustained Denial of Service (DoS) condition. This issue affects: Junos OS: * All versions before 22.2R3-S4, * 22.4 versions before 22.4R3-S2, * 23.2 versions before 23.2R2, * 23.4 versions before 23.4R2. Junos OS Evolved: * All versions before 22.2R3-S4-EVO, * 22.4-EVO versions before 22.4R3-S2-EVO, * 23.2-EVO versions before 23.2R2-EVO, * 23.4-EVO versions before 23.4R2-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 confidenceThis is an expired pointer dereference vulnerability in the Routing Protocol Daemon (rpd) on Juniper Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved. When an MPLS Label-Switched Path (LSP) is configured with both node-link-protection and transport-class features enabled, an LSP flap causes rpd to crash and restart due to dereferencing an invalid pointer. Repeated LSP flapping creates a sustained DoS condition.
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< 22.2= 22.2= 22.4= 23.2= 23.4< 22.2= 22.2= 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/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 Junos OS versionRun 'show version' on the device CLI to obtain the installed Junos OS or Junos OS Evolved version.Affected if The installed version matches < 22.2, = 22.2, = 22.4, = 23.2, or = 23.4.
-
Verify MPLS is configuredRun 'show configuration protocols mpls' to check if MPLS is enabled and if any Label-Switched Paths (LSPs) are defined.Affected if MPLS protocol is configured with one or more LSPs.
-
Check for node-link-protection on LSPsRun 'show configuration protocols mpls label-switched-path <name>' for each defined LSP, or search the configuration for 'node-link-protection' under the LSP hierarchy.Affected if Any LSP has node-link-protection enabled.
-
Check for transport-class on LSPsRun 'show configuration protocols mpls label-switched-path <name>' for each defined LSP, or search the configuration for 'transport-class' under the LSP hierarchy.Affected if Any LSP has transport-class configured.
The device is affected if it runs a vulnerable Junos version AND has an MPLS LSP configured with both node-link-protection and transport-class enabled, where an LSP state change could trigger rpd to crash.
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 · scoped22.2
Upgrade Junos OS/Evolved to the fixed versions specified in the advisory (22.2R3-S4, 22.4R3-S2, 23.2R2, or 23.4R2 and later). If immediate upgrade is not feasible, consider disabling node-link-protection on affected MPLS LSPs or implementing traffic filtering to limit adjacent network attack surface.
Upgrade to Junos OS 22.2R3-S4 / 22.4R3-S2 / 23.2R2 / 23.4R2 or later (or corresponding Junos OS Evolved versions)
- 1. Identify the current Junos OS or Junos OS Evolved version installed on the device using 'show version'
- 2. Determine which upgrade path applies based on the current version branch (22.2, 22.4, 23.2, or 23.4)
- 3. Schedule a maintenance window as the upgrade will require a system reboot
- 4. Download the appropriate fixed version from Juniper support portal: 22.2R3-S4 or higher, 22.4R3-S2 or higher, 23.2R2 or higher, or 23.4R2 or higher
- 5. Upload the Junos upgrade package to the device using 'file copy' or USB transfer
- 6. Install the upgrade using 'request system software add <package>' command
- 7. Reboot the device using 'request system reboot' to complete the installation
- 8. After reboot, verify the new version is running with 'show version'
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-30653 — 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-2025-30653 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