BlackTreeIndependent security intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2018
CVE-2018-0043High confidence

Junos OS: RPD daemon crashes upon receipt of specific MPLS packet

Juniper Networks · Junos OS

8.8HighCVSS 3.0
Recommended action
Within 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Select the national-authority views to include. The exact source language is shown on each matched advisory. Your choice is remembered on this device and encoded in the shareable URL.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2018-0867

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionWithin 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
01

What, why and how

Receipt of a specific MPLS packet may cause the routing protocol daemon (RPD) process to crash and restart or may lead to remote code execution. By continuously sending specific MPLS packets, an attacker can repeatedly crash the RPD process causing a sustained Denial of Service. This issue affects both IPv4 and IPv6. This issue can only be exploited from within the MPLS domain. 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-D75 on SRX Series; 14.1X53 versions prior to 14.1X53-D47 on QFX/EX Series; 14.1X53 versions prior to 14.1X53-D130 on QFabric Series; 15.1F6 versions prior to 15.1F6-S10; 15.1 versions prior to 15.1R4-S9 15.1R7; 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 16.1R3-S8 16.1R4-S8 16.1R5-S4 16.1R6-S4 16.1R7; 16.1X65 versions prior to 16.1X65-D48; 16.2 versions prior to 16.2R1-S6 16.2R3; 17.1 versions prior to 17.1R1-S7 17.1R2-S6 17.1R3; 17.2 versions prior to 17.2R1-S6 17.2R2-S3 17.2R3; 17.2X75 versions prior to 17.2X75-D100 17.2X75-D42 17.2X75-D91; 17.3 versions prior to 17.3R1-S4 17.3R2-S2 17.3R3; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R1-S3 17.4R2 . No other Juniper Networks products or platforms are affected by this issue.

What

Receipt of a specific MPLS packet may cause the routing protocol daemon (RPD) process to crash and restart or may lead to remote code execution. By continuously sending specific MPLS packets, an attacker can repeatedly crash the RPD process causing a sustained Denial of Service. This issue affects both IPv4 and IPv6. This issue can only be exploited from within the MPLS domain. 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-D75 on SRX Series; 14.1X53 versions prior to 14.1X53-D47 on QFX/EX Series; 14.1X53 versions prior to 14.1X53-D130 on QFabric Series; 15.1F6 versions prior to 15.1F6-S10; 15.1 versions prior to 15.1R4-S9 15.1R7; 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 16.1R3-S8 16.1R4-S8 16.1R5-S4 16.1R6-S4 16.1R7; 16.1X65 versions prior to 16.1X65-D48; 16.2 versions prior to 16.2R1-S6 16.2R3; 17.1 versions prior to 17.1R1-S7 17.1R2-S6 17.1R3; 17.2 versions prior to 17.2R1-S6 17.2R2-S3 17.2R3; 17.2X75 versions prior to 17.2X75-D100 17.2X75-D42 17.2X75-D91; 17.3 versions prior to 17.3R1-S4 17.3R2-S2 17.3R3; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R1-S3 17.4R2 . No other Juniper Networks products or platforms are affected by this issue.

Why

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How

An attacker operating through an adjacent network may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.

What

Receipt of a specific MPLS packet may cause the routing protocol daemon (RPD) process to crash and restart or may lead to remote code execution. By continuously sending specific MPLS packets, an attacker can repeatedly crash the RPD process causing a sustained Denial of Service. This issue affects both IPv4 and IPv6. This issue can only be exploited from within the MPLS domain. 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-D75 on SRX Series; 14.1X53 versions prior to 14.1X53-D47 on QFX/EX Series; 14.1X53 versions prior to 14.1X53-D130 on QFabric Series; 15.1F6 versions prior to 15.1F6-S10; 15.1 versions prior to 15.1R4-S9 15.1R7; 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 16.1R3-S8 16.1R4-S8 16.1R5-S4 16.1R6-S4 16.1R7; 16.1X65 versions prior to 16.1X65-D48; 16.2 versions prior to 16.2R1-S6 16.2R3; 17.1 versions prior to 17.1R1-S7 17.1R2-S6 17.1R3; 17.2 versions prior to 17.2R1-S6 17.2R2-S3 17.2R3; 17.2X75 versions prior to 17.2X75-D100 17.2X75-D42 17.2X75-D91; 17.3 versions prior to 17.3R1-S4 17.3R2-S2 17.3R3; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R1-S3 17.4R2 . No other Juniper Networks products or platforms are affected by this issue.

Why

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How

An attacker operating through an adjacent network may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.

Likely attack path
an adjacent network → Improper Input Validation → execute code or commands in the affected security context
Attack surface
Adjacent
Privileges required
None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-20 ↗

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 3.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVAdjacentAttack vector: The attacker must be on an adjacent or logically close network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
UnauthenticatedRemote code executionDenial of serviceCWE-20
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Fix not verified
Affected
12.1X46 < 12.1X46-D77; 12.3X48 < 12.3X48-D75; 15.1X49 < 15.1X49-D140; 12.3 < 12.3R12-S10; 15.1F6 < 15.1F6-S10; 15.1 < 15.1R4-S9 15.1R7; 16.1 < 16.1R3-S8 16.1R4-S8 16.1R5-S4 16.1R6-S4 16.1R7; 16.1X65 < 16.1X65-D48
Fixed
No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
Action
No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 10 Oct 2018 · Last source change 16 Sept 2024, 22:45 UTC · CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-01
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2018-0867
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceNIST NVD
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates →
  1. Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed from no authoritative guidance recorded to vendor advisory.
    Before
    no authoritative guidance recorded
    After
    vendor advisory
    af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108 ↗
  2. ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2018-0867 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.
    Before
    not recorded
    After
    {"euvdId":"EUVD-2018-0867"}
    ENISA EUVD ↗
  3. Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.
    CNA ↗
Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
CVE published
ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2018-0867↗Vendor advisory↗CVE authority or vendor reference↗Official CVE record (CNA and ADP data)↗NVD record↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2018-0043 · cve.blacktree.nl