CVE-2025-52955
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 Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size vulnerability in the routing protocol daemon (rpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved allows an adjacent unauthenticated attacker to cause a memory corruption that leads to a rpd crash. When the logical interface using a routing instance flaps continuously, specific updates are sent to the jflow/sflow modules. This results in memory corruption, leading to an rpd crash and restart. Continued receipt of these specific updates will cause a sustained Denial of Service condition. This issue affects Junos OS: * All versions before 21.2R3-S9, * All versions of 21.4, * All versions of 22.2, * from 22.4 before 22.4R3-S7, * from 23.2 before 23.2R2-S3, * from 23.4 before 23.4R2-S4, * from 24.2 before 24.2R2. Junos OS Evolved: * All versions of 21.2-EVO, * All versions of 21.4-EVO, * All versions of 22.2-EVO, * from 22.4 before 22.4R3-S7-EVO, * from 23.2 before 23.2R2-S3-EVO, * from 23.4 before 23.4R2-S4-EVO, * from 24.2 before 24.2R2-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 confidenceA buffer size miscalculation in the rpd daemon causes memory corruption when a logical interface with a routing instance flaps continuously, sending specific updates to jflow/sflow modules. This leads to rpd crash and restart, with continued interface flapping resulting in sustained denial of service. The vulnerability is exploitable by adjacent unauthenticated attackers.
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= 21.2= 21.4= 22.2= 22.4= 23.2= 23.4= 24.2= 21.2= 21.4= 22.2= 22.4= 23.2= 23.4= 24.2CVSS 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
- 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 installed Junos versionRun 'show version' or 'version' command on the device to obtain the exact Junos OS or Junos OS Evolved versionAffected if The version matches any of the affected versions listed (21.2, 21.4, 22.2, 22.4, 23.2, 23.4, 24.2) or is earlier than 21.2
-
Verify rpd daemon is runningRun 'show system processes routing' or check process status to confirm the rpd routing daemon is activeAffected if rpd is running and the version is affected
-
Check for jflow or sflow configurationRun 'show configuration | match jflow' and 'show configuration | match sflow' to see if flow sampling modules are enabledAffected if jflow or sflow is configured on the device
-
Identify logical interfaces with routing instancesRun 'show configuration logical-systems' and review interface assignments under routing-instances, or use 'show interfaces terse' to list logical interfacesAffected if Logical interfaces are bound to non-default routing instances
The device is affected if it runs a vulnerable Junos version (21.2, 21.4, 22.2, 22.4, 23.2, 23.4, 24.2 or earlier) AND has rpd running with jflow/sflow configured on logical interfaces that participate in routing instances that can flap.
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 · scoped21.2
Upgrade Junos OS or Junos OS Evolved to the specified patched versions (22.4R3-S7, 23.2R2-S3, 23.4R2-S4, 24.2R2 or later) to resolve the buffer size calculation error in the rpd daemon.
Upgrade to 24.2R2 (or latest 24.2R2-x) for current branches; for 21.2 branch upgrade to 21.2R3-S9; for 22.4 branch upgrade to 22.4R3-S7; for 23.2 branch upgrade to 23.2R2-S3; for 23.4 branch upgrade to 23.4R2-S4
- 1. Identify the current Junos OS or Junos OS Evolved version running on the device using 'show version'
- 2. Determine the appropriate upgrade path based on the current major version branch
- 3. Download the appropriate fixed release from Juniper Networks support portal
- 4. Upload the Junos OS upgrade package to the device using 'file copy' or USB transfer
- 5. For Junos OS: Run 'request system software add <package>' to install the upgrade
- 6. For Junos OS Evolved: Run 'request system software evo add <package>' to install the upgrade
- 7. After installation, reboot the device using 'request system reboot'
- 8. Verify the new version is running with 'show version' and confirm the vulnerability is resolved
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,320.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-52955 — 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-2025-52955 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