CVE-2020-1668 Detail

CVE-2020-1668

Score / Severity

6.5

Medium

EPSS

0.06%V3

Vector

Adjacent

Published

2020-10-16
20h31 +00:00

Modified

2024-09-16
18h18 +00:00

Official links

CVE.org

NVD

Notifications for a CVE

Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.

Notifications manage

List of Notifications

Notifications for a CVE

Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.

Criteria applied when sending the alert: compared with the last alert sent + differences in CISA, EPSS, CVSS, CWE, Solutions, CPE.

Parameters

You can specify a title that will be retrieved in the alerts that will be sent out.

Specified here a CVE ID as CVE-2025-1234

Planning

Month

Next run calculation

Day

Weekday

Hour

Minute

Creation date

Last execution

Next execution

Functionality requiring a connection

This feature, which allows you to receive alerts, is only active when you are logged into your account.

CVE Descriptions

Junos OS: EX2300 Series: High CPU load due to receipt of specific multicast packets on layer 2 interface

On Juniper Networks EX2300 Series, receipt of a stream of specific multicast packets by the layer2 interface can cause high CPU load, which could lead to traffic interruption. This issue occurs when multicast packets are received by the layer 2 interface. To check if the device has high CPU load due to this issue, the administrator can issue the following command: user@host> show chassis routing-engine Routing Engine status: ... Idle 2 percent the "Idle" value shows as low (2 % in the example above), and also the following command: user@host> show system processes summary ... PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU COMMAND 11639 root 52 0 283M 11296K select 12:15 44.97% eventd 11803 root 81 0 719M 239M RUN 251:12 31.98% fxpc{fxpc} the eventd and the fxpc processes might use higher WCPU percentage (respectively 44.97% and 31.98% in the above example). This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS on EX2300 Series: 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R3-S11; 18.2 versions prior to 18.2R3-S5; 18.3 versions prior to 18.3R2-S4, 18.3R3-S3; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R2-S5, 18.4R3-S4; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R3-S2; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R1-S5, 19.2R3; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R2-S4, 19.3R3; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R1-S3, 19.4R2-S1, 19.4R3; 20.1 versions prior to 20.1R1-S2, 20.1R2.

CVE Solutions

The following software releases have been updated to resolve this specific issue: Junos OS 18.1R3-S11, 18.2R3-S5, 18.3R2-S4, 18.3R3-S3, 18.4R2-S5, 18.4R3-S4, 19.1R3-S2, 19.2R1-S5, 19.2R3, 19.3R2-S4, 19.3R3, 19.4R1-S3, 19.4R2-S1, 19.4R3, 20.1R1-S2, 20.1R2, 20.2R1, and all subsequent releases.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE-400	Uncontrolled Resource Consumption The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource, thereby enabling an actor to influence the amount of resources consumed, eventually leading to the exhaustion of available resources.
CWE Other	No informations.

Metrics

Metrics	Score	Severity	CVSS Vector	Source
V3.1	6.5	MEDIUM	CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H More informations Base: Exploitabilty Metrics The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Adjacent The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope Metrics The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact Metrics The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal Metrics The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental Metrics These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.
V2	3.3		AV:A/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P	[email protected]

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 18.1 (Open CPE detail)