CVE-2026-21907
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 Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm vulnerability in the TLS/SSL server of Juniper Networks Junos Space allows the use of static key ciphers (ssl-static-key-ciphers), reducing the confidentiality of on-path traffic communicated across the connection. These ciphers also do not support Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS), affecting the long-term confidentiality of encrypted communications.This issue affects all versions of Junos Space before 24.1R5.
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 confidenceThe TLS/SSL server in Juniper Networks Junos Space allows the use of static key ciphers (ssl-static-key-ciphers), which do not provide Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS). This vulnerability allows on-path attackers to potentially decrypt captured traffic, and compromises long-term confidentiality since compromising a static key allows decryption of all past sessions encrypted with that key.
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< 24.1= 24.1CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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 Junos Space versionUse the Junos Space web UI (Help > About) or CLI command 'show version' to determine the installed Junos Space versionAffected if The installed version is any release prior to 24.1 or is exactly 24.1 (24.1.0 through 24.1R4)
-
Locate TLS/SSL server configurationAccess Junos Space web UI > Administration > TLS/SSL Settings, or check the SSL/TLS configuration files in the Junos Space configuration directoryAffected if A TLS/SSL server configuration exists and is enabled for Junos Space services
-
Inspect enabled cipher suitesReview the configured cipher list in the TLS/SSL settings. Look for cipher strings containing 'static', 'aNULL', 'eNULL', or 'EXPORT' keywords, or specifically check if 'ssl-static-key-ciphers' is listedAffected if The enabled cipher list includes any static key ciphers that do not provide Perfect Forward Secrecy (non-ECDHE/non-DHE ciphers)
-
Verify PFS capabilityCheck whether all enabled cipher suites use ephemeral Diffie-Hellman (DHE) or elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDHE) key exchangeAffected if At least one static key cipher is enabled and no PFS-capable ciphers are configured, or static key ciphers are prioritized
You are affected if your Junos Space version is < 24.1 or exactly 24.1 AND your TLS/SSL server configuration includes static key ciphers that lack Perfect Forward Secrecy.
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 · scoped24.1
Disable static key ciphers on the Junos Space TLS/SSL server and configure only PFS-enabled ciphers (ECDHE/DHE-based) to ensure forward secrecy. Upgrade to Junos Space 24.1R5 or later which addresses this vulnerability.
24.1R5
- 1. Log into the Junos Space web interface or CLI
- 2. Navigate to the administration or system settings area
- 3. Locate the TLS/SSL configuration for the web server
- 4. Identify and remove any static key ciphers (ssl-static-key-ciphers) from the allowed cipher list
- 5. Ensure only modern, secure ciphers supporting Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) are enabled (e.g., TLS 1.2/1.3 with ECDHE or DHE cipher suites)
- 6. Apply the configuration changes
- 7. Restart the Junos Space services if required
- 8. Verify the changes by testing TLS/SSL connections to ensure only strong ciphers are accepted
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-21907 — 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-2026-21907 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