CVE-2023-28961

Score / Severity

5.8

Medium

EPSS

0.15%V4

Vector

Network

Published

2023-04-17
00h00 +00:00

Modified

2025-02-06
14h40 +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: ACX Series: IPv6 firewall filter is not installed in PFE when "from next-header ah" is used

An Improper Handling of Unexpected Data Type vulnerability in IPv6 firewall filter processing of Juniper Networks Junos OS on the ACX Series devices will prevent a firewall filter with the term 'from next-header ah' from being properly installed in the packet forwarding engine (PFE). There is no immediate indication of an incomplete firewall filter commit shown at the CLI, which could allow an attacker to send valid packets to or through the device that were explicitly intended to be dropped. An indication that the filter was not installed can be identified with the following logs: fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_rule_prepare : Config failed: Unsupported Ip-protocol 51 in the filter lo0.0-inet6-i fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_rule_prepare : Please detach the filter, remove unsupported match and re-attach fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_process_rule : Status:104 dnx_dfw_rule_prepare failed fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_process_filter : Status:104 dnx_dfw_process_rule failed fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_update_filter_in_hw : Status:104 Could not process filter(lo0.0-inet6-i) for rule expansion Unsupported match, action present. fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_create_hw_instance : Status:104 Could not program dfw(lo0.0-inet6-i) type(IFP_DFLT_INET6_Lo0_FILTER)! [104] fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_bind_shim : [104] Could not create dfw(lo0.0-inet6-i) type(IFP_DFLT_INET6_Lo0_FILTER) fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_update_resolve : [100] Failed to bind filter(3) to bind point fpc0 ACX_DFW_CFG_FAILED: ACX Error (dfw):dnx_dfw_change_end : dnx_dfw_update_resolve (resolve type) failed This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS on ACX Series: All versions prior to 20.2R3-S7; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3-S4; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R3-S3; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R3-S4; 21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3; 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3; 22.1 versions prior to 22.1R2.

CVE Solutions

The following software releases have been updated to resolve this specific issue: 20.2R3-S7, 20.4R3-S4, 21.1R3-S3, 21.2R3-S4, 21.3R3, 21.4R3, 22.1R2, 22.2R1, and all subsequent releases.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE-241	Improper Handling of Unexpected Data Type The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a particular element is not the expected type, e.g. it expects a digit (0-9) but is provided with a letter (A-Z).

Metrics

Metrics	Score	Severity	CVSS Vector	Source
V3.1	5.8	MEDIUM	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N 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. Network The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). 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. Changed An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities. 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. Low Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no impact to availability within the impacted component. 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.
V3.1	5.3	MEDIUM	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N 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. Network The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). 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. Low Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no impact to availability within the impacted component. 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.	nvd@nist.gov

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.

Date	EPSS V0	EPSS V1	EPSS V2 (> 2022-02-04)	EPSS V3 (> 2025-03-07)	EPSS V4 (> 2025-03-17)
2023-04-23	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2024-03-17	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2024-04-14	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2024-05-19	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2024-06-02	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2024-07-14	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2024-08-04	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2024-08-11	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2024-09-29	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2024-11-10	–	–	–	0.06%	–
2024-12-29	–	–	–	0.06%	–
2025-03-02	–	–	–	0.06%	–
2025-01-19	–	–	–	0.06%	–
2025-03-09	–	–	–	0.06%	–
2025-03-18	–	–	–	–	0.18%
2025-03-30	–	–	–	–	0.21%
2025-04-15	–	–	–	–	0.15%
2025-04-15	–	–	–	–	0.15,%

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

Date	Percentile
2023-04-23	14%
2024-03-17	15%
2024-04-14	16%
2024-05-19	18%
2024-06-02	18%
2024-07-14	19%
2024-08-04	18%
2024-08-11	19%
2024-09-29	23%
2024-11-10	25%
2024-12-29	26%
2025-03-02	27%
2025-01-19	26%
2025-03-09	27%
2025-03-18	38%
2025-03-30	41%
2025-04-15	37%
2025-04-15	37%