CVE-2025-52954
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 · uneditedA Missing Authorization vulnerability in the internal virtual routing and forwarding (VRF) of Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved allows a local, low-privileged user to gain root privileges, leading to a system compromise. Any low-privileged user with the capability to send packets over the internal VRF can execute arbitrary Junos commands and modify the configuration, and thus compromise the system. This issue affects Junos OS Evolved: * All versions before 22.2R3-S7-EVO, * from 22.4 before 22.4R3-S7-EVO, * from 23.2 before 23.2R2-S4-EVO, * from 23.4 before 23.4R2-S5-EVO, * from 24.2 before 24.2R2-S1-EVO * from 24.4 before 24.4R1-S2-EVO, 24.4R2-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 confidenceMissing authorization in internal VRF allows any low-privileged local user with packet-sending capability on the internal VRF to execute arbitrary Junos OS commands with root privileges and modify system configuration, enabling complete system compromise.
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= 24.2= 24.4CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 installed Junos OS Evolved versionExecute `show version` or `show version detail` on the device CLI to retrieve the exact software versionAffected if The displayed version matches any of the following: below 22.2, 22.2, 22.4, 23.2, 23.4, 24.2, or 24.4 (including variants like 22.2R1, 22.4R1, etc.)
-
Confirm the device is running Junos OS EvolvedVerify the output from `show version` indicates "Junos OS Evolved" rather than classic Junos OSAffected if The platform is Junos OS Evolved and the version falls in the affected list from step 1
-
Check for internal VRF configurationReview the VRF configuration using `show configuration | match vrf` or `show configuration routing-instances` to identify if internal VRFs are definedAffected if Internal VRF instances are configured on the device
-
Identify users with packet-sending capability on internal VRFExamine user permissions and VRF access controls via `show configuration system login` and review any packet-sending or VRF-access permissions assigned to non-privileged accountsAffected if Any low-privileged local user account has been granted packet-sending capability or access to the internal VRF
The device is affected if it runs Junos OS Evolved with a version in the affected list and has internal VRF configured with any low-privileged user having packet-sending capability on that VRF.
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
Apply the vendor-supplied patches: upgrade to 22.2R3-S7-EVO, 22.4R3-S7-EVO, 23.2R2-S4-EVO, 23.4R2-S5-EVO, 24.2R2-S1-EVO, or 24.4R1-S2-EVO/24.4R2-EVO as appropriate for each affected branch.
For 22.2 branch: upgrade to 22.2R3-S7-EVO; for 22.4 branch: upgrade to 22.4R3-S7-EVO; for 23.2 branch: upgrade to 23.2R2-S4-EVO; for 23.4 branch: upgrade to 23.4R2-S5-EVO; for 24.2 branch: upgrade to 24.2R2-S1-EVO; for 24.4 branch: upgrade to 24.4R2-EVO or 24.4R1-S2-EVO
- 1. Identify the currently running Junos OS Evolved version using 'show version' command
- 2. Based on the current version, determine the appropriate upgrade path to a fixed release
- 3. Download the appropriate fixed Junos OS Evolved image from the Juniper Networks support portal
- 4. Before upgrading, backup the current configuration using 'request system backup' or similar
- 5. Transfer the upgrade image to the device and initiate the upgrade with 'request system software add <image> reboot'
- 6. After the device reboots, verify the new version is running with 'show version'
- 7. Verify the fix is applied by confirming the system is running a patched version as specified in the fixed releases
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 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 $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-52954 — 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-2025-52954 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