57%
65%
106%
Receipt of a specific Draft-Rosen MVPN control packet may cause the routing protocol daemon (RPD) process to crash and restart or may lead to remote code execution. By continuously sending the same specific Draft-Rosen MVPN control packet, an attacker can repeatedly crash the RPD process causing a prolonged denial of service. This issue may occur when the Junos OS device is configured for Draft-Rosen multicast virtual private network (MVPN). The VPN is multicast-enabled and configured to use Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) protocol within the VPN. This issue can only be exploited from the PE device within the MPLS domain which is capable of forwarding IP multicast traffic in core. End-users connected to the CE device cannot cause this crash. Affected releases are Juniper Networks Junos OS: 12.1X46 versions prior to 12.1X46-D77 on SRX Series; 12.3 versions prior to 12.3R12-S10; 12.3X48 versions prior to 12.3X48-D70 on SRX Series; 15.1 versions prior to 15.1R4-S9, 15.1R6-S6, 15.1R7; 15.1F6; 15.1X49 versions prior to 15.1X49-D140 on SRX Series; 15.1X53 versions prior to 15.1X53-D59 on EX2300/EX3400 Series; 15.1X53 versions prior to 15.1X53-D67 on QFX10K Series; 15.1X53 versions prior to 15.1X53-D233 on QFX5200/QFX5110 Series; 15.1X53 versions prior to 15.1X53-D471, 15.1X53-D490 on NFX Series; 16.1 versions prior to 16.1R4-S9, 16.1R5-S4, 16.1R6-S3, 16.1R7; 16.2 versions prior to 16.2R1-S6, 16.2R2-S6, 16.2R3; 17.1 versions prior to 17.1R1-S7, 17.1R2-S7, 17.1R3; 17.2 versions prior to 17.2R2-S4, 17.2R3; 17.3 versions prior to 17.3R2-S2, 17.3R3; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R1-S3, 17.4R2; 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R2. No other Juniper Networks products or platforms are affected by this issue.
Receipt of a specific Draft-Rosen MVPN control packet may cause the routing protocol daemon (RPD) process to crash and restart or may lead to remote code execution. By continuously sending the same specific Draft-Rosen MVPN control packet, an attacker can repeatedly crash the RPD process causing a prolonged denial of service. This issue may occur when the Junos OS device is configured for Draft-Rosen multicast virtual private network (MVPN). The VPN is multicast-enabled and configured to use Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) protocol within the VPN. This issue can only be exploited from the PE device within the MPLS domain which is capable of forwarding IP multicast traffic in core. End-users connected to the CE device cannot cause this crash. Affected releases are Juniper Networks Junos OS: 12.1X46 versions prior to 12.1X46-D77 on SRX Series; 12.3 versions prior to 12.3R12-S10; 12.3X48 versions prior to 12.3X48-D70 on SRX Series; 15.1 versions prior to 15.1R4-S9, 15.1R6-S6, 15.1R7; 15.1F6; 15.1X49 versions prior to 15.1X49-D140 on SRX Series; 15.1X53 versions prior to 15.1X53-D59 on EX2300/EX3400 Series; 15.1X53 versions prior to 15.1X53-D67 on QFX10K Series; 15.1X53 versions prior to 15.1X53-D233 on QFX5200/QFX5110 Series; 15.1X53 versions prior to 15.1X53-D471, 15.1X53-D490 on NFX Series; 16.1 versions prior to 16.1R4-S9, 16.1R5-S4, 16.1R6-S3, 16.1R7; 16.2 versions prior to 16.2R1-S6, 16.2R2-S6, 16.2R3; 17.1 versions prior to 17.1R1-S7, 17.1R2-S7, 17.1R3; 17.2 versions prior to 17.2R2-S4, 17.2R3; 17.3 versions prior to 17.3R2-S2, 17.3R3; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R1-S3, 17.4R2; 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R2. No other Juniper Networks products or platforms are affected by this issue.
CVSS 3.0 Base Score 8.8. CVSS Attack Vector: adjacent_network. CVSS Attack Complexity: low. CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
CVSS 2.0 Base Score 5.8. CVSS Attack Vector: adjacent_network. CVSS Attack Complexity: low. CVSS Vector: (AV:A/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P).
This example demonstrates a shopping interaction in which the user is free to specify the quantity of items to be purchased and a total is calculated.
...The user has no control over the price variable, however the code does not prevent a negative value from being specified for quantity. If an attacker were to provide a negative value, then the user would have their account credited instead of debited.
This example asks the user for a height and width of an m X n game board with a maximum dimension of 100 squares.
.../* board dimensions */die("No integer passed: Die evil hacker!\n");die("No integer passed: Die evil hacker!\n");die("Value too large: Die evil hacker!\n");While this code checks to make sure the user cannot specify large, positive integers and consume too much memory, it does not check for negative values supplied by the user. As a result, an attacker can perform a resource consumption (CWE-400) attack against this program by specifying two, large negative values that will not overflow, resulting in a very large memory allocation (CWE-789) and possibly a system crash. Alternatively, an attacker can provide very large negative values which will cause an integer overflow (CWE-190) and unexpected behavior will follow depending on how the values are treated in the remainder of the program.
The following example shows a PHP application in which the programmer attempts to display a user's birthday and homepage.
echo "Birthday: $birthday<br>Homepage: <a href=$homepage>click here</a>"The programmer intended for $birthday to be in a date format and $homepage to be a valid URL. However, since the values are derived from an HTTP request, if an attacker can trick a victim into clicking a crafted URL with <script> tags providing the values for birthday and / or homepage, then the script will run on the client's browser when the web server echoes the content. Notice that even if the programmer were to defend the $birthday variable by restricting input to integers and dashes, it would still be possible for an attacker to provide a string of the form:
2009-01-09--If this data were used in a SQL statement, it would treat the remainder of the statement as a comment. The comment could disable other security-related logic in the statement. In this case, encoding combined with input validation would be a more useful protection mechanism.
Furthermore, an XSS (CWE-79) attack or SQL injection (CWE-89) are just a few of the potential consequences when input validation is not used. Depending on the context of the code, CRLF Injection (CWE-93), Argument Injection (CWE-88), or Command Injection (CWE-77) may also be possible.
This function attempts to extract a pair of numbers from a user-supplied string.
}
die("Did not specify integer value. Die evil hacker!\n");/* proceed assuming n and m are initialized correctly */This code attempts to extract two integer values out of a formatted, user-supplied input. However, if an attacker were to provide an input of the form:
123:then only the m variable will be initialized. Subsequent use of n may result in the use of an uninitialized variable (CWE-457).
The following example takes a user-supplied value to allocate an array of objects and then operates on the array.
}list[0] = new Widget();die("Negative value supplied for list size, die evil hacker!");This example attempts to build a list from a user-specified value, and even checks to ensure a non-negative value is supplied. If, however, a 0 value is provided, the code will build an array of size 0 and then try to store a new Widget in the first location, causing an exception to be thrown.
This application has registered to handle a URL when sent an intent:
}......
}
}int length = URL.length();...The application assumes the URL will always be included in the intent. When the URL is not present, the call to getStringExtra() will return null, thus causing a null pointer exception when length() is called.
ExploitPedia is constantly evolving. Sign up to receive a notification when we release additional functionality.
If you'd like to report a bug or have any suggestions for improvements then please do get in touch with us using this form. We will get back to you as soon as we can.