CVE-2026-33802
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 CLI of Juniper Networks Junos OS on EX Series allows a local, authenticated attacker to cause a Denial-of-Service (DoS). On EX2300, EX4000, EX4100, EX4300-MP (Multigigabit) and EX4400 switches, an authenticated, local attacker with no specific permissions or class can execute a specific, privileged CLI 'request' command which will cause complete traffic impact until the system automatically recovers. This issue affects Junos OS on EX2300, EX4000, EX4100, EX4300-MP (Multigigabit) and EX4400: * 23.2R2 versions before 23.2R2-S6, * 23.4 versions before 23.4R2-S8, * 24.2 versions before 24.2R2-S4, * 24.4 versions before 24.4R2-S3, * 25.2 versions before 25.2R2, * 25.4 versions before 25.4R1-S1.
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 missing authorization vulnerability in the Junos OS CLI on EX Series switches (EX2300, EX4000, EX4100, EX4300-MP, EX4400) allows any authenticated local user with no special permissions to execute a specific privileged CLI 'request' command, causing complete traffic loss until the system auto-recovers.
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= 23.2= 23.4= 24.2= 24.4= 25.2= 25.4CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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 EX Series switch modelRun 'show version' or check the physical device label to confirm the model is one of: EX2300, EX4000, EX4100, EX4300-MP, or EX4400Affected if The device model matches one of the listed EX Series models
-
Check Junos OS versionRun 'show version' and locate the Junos version string in the outputAffected if The installed version is exactly 23.2, 23.4, 24.2, 24.4, 25.2, or 25.4
-
Verify local user access existsRun 'show system login' to list configured local user accountsAffected if One or more local user accounts are configured on the device
You are affected if you have an EX2300, EX4000, EX4100, EX4300-MP, or EX4400 switch running Junos OS version 23.2, 23.4, 24.2, 24.4, 25.2, or 25.4 with at least one local user account configured.
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 · scopedUpgrade Junos OS to the patched versions specified in the advisory (23.2R2-S6+, 23.4R2-S8+, 24.2R2-S4+, 24.4R2-S3+, 25.2R2+, 25.4R1-S1+) to remediate the missing authorization check.
Upgrade to 23.2R2-S6 / 23.4R2-S8 / 24.2R2-S4 / 24.4R2-S3 / 25.2R2 / 25.4R1-S1 or later (choose based on your current branch)
- 1. Identify the current Junos OS version running on the affected EX Series switch (EX2300, EX4000, EX4100, EX4300-MP, or EX4400) using the command: show version
- 2. Determine which upgrade path applies based on your current version branch (23.2, 23.4, 24.2, 24.4, 25.2, or 25.4)
- 3. Download the appropriate fixed version from the Juniper support portal: 23.2R2-S6 or later, 23.4R2-S8 or later, 24.2R2-S4 or later, 24.4R2-S3 or later, 25.2R2 or later, or 25.4R1-S1 or later
- 4. Upload the Junos OS upgrade package to the switch using: file copy or USB storage
- 5. Install the upgrade using: request system software add <package-name> reboot
- 6. After the switch reboots, verify the new version is running and confirm the fix is applied: show version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $4,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-33802 — 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-2026-33802 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