CVE-2021-0273

Score / Sévérité

5.3

MEDIUM

EPSS

0.08%V3

Vecteur

Network

Publié

2021-04-13 22:00 +00:00

Dernière modif.

2024-08-03 15:32 +00:00

Liens officiels

CVE.org

NVD

Alerte pour un CVE

Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.

Gestion des alertes

Liste des Alertes

Alerte pour un CVE

Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.

Critères appliqués l'envoi de l'alerte : par rapport à la dernière alerte envoyée + différences au niveau de CISA, EPSS, CVSS, CWE, Solutions, CPE.

Paramètres

Vous pouvez sécifier un titre qui sera récupéré dans les alertes qui seront envoyées.

Spécifiez ici un CVE ID comme CVE-2024-1234

Planificiations

Mois

Prochaine exécution calculée

Jour

Jour de la semaine

Heure

Minute

Date de création

Dernière exécution

Prochaine exécution

Fonctionnalité nécessitant une connexion

Cette fonctionnalité qui vous permet de recevoir des alertes, n'est active que lorsque vous êtes connecté à votre compte.

Descriptions

Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved: Trio Chipset: Denial of Service due to packet destined to device's interfaces.

An always-incorrect control flow implementation in the implicit filter terms of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved on ACX5800, EX9200 Series, MX10000 Series, MX240, MX480, MX960 devices with affected Trio line cards allows an attacker to exploit an interdependency in the PFE UCODE microcode of the Trio chipset with various line cards to cause packets destined to the devices interfaces to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) condition by looping the packet with an unreachable exit condition ('Infinite Loop'). To break this loop once it begins one side of the affected LT interfaces will need to be disabled. Once disabled, the condition will clear and the disabled LT interface can be reenabled. Continued receipt and processing of these packets will create a sustained Denial of Service (DoS) condition. This issue only affects LT-LT interfaces. Any other interfaces are not affected by this issue. This issue affects the following cards: MPCE Type 3 3D MPC4E 3D 32XGE MPC4E 3D 2CGE+8XGE EX9200 32x10G SFP EX9200-2C-8XS FPC Type 5-3D FPC Type 5-LSR EX9200 4x40G QSFP An Indicator of Compromise (IoC) can be seen by examining the traffic of the LT-LT interfaces for excessive traffic using the following command: monitor interface traffic Before loop impact: Interface: lt-2/0/0, Enabled, Link is Up Encapsulation: Logical-tunnel, Speed: 100000mbps Traffic statistics: Current delta Input bytes: 3759900268942 (1456 bps) [0] <---------- LT interface utilization is low Output bytes: 3759900344309 (1456 bps) [0] <---------- LT interface utilization is low After loop impact: Interface: lt-2/0/0, Enabled, Link is Up Encapsulation: Logical-tunnel, Speed: 100000mbps Traffic statistics: Current delta Input bytes: 3765160313129 (2158268368 bps) [5260044187] <---------- LT interface utilization is very high Output bytes: 3765160399522 (2158266440 bps) [5260055213] <---------- LT interface utilization is very high This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS on ACX5800, EX9200 Series, MX10000 Series, MX240, MX480, MX960. Versions 15.1F6, 16.1R1, and later versions prior to 16.1R7-S8; 17.1 versions prior to 17.1R2-S12; 17.2 versions prior to 17.2R3-S4; 17.3 versions prior to 17.3R3-S8; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R2-S10, 17.4R3-S2; 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R3-S10; 18.2 versions prior to 18.2R2-S7, 18.2R3-S3; 18.3 versions prior to 18.3R1-S7, 18.3R3-S2; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R1-S7, 18.4R2-S4, 18.4R3-S2; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R1-S5, 19.1R2-S1, 19.1R3; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R1-S4, 19.2R2; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R2-S3, 19.3R3; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R1-S1, 19.4R2. This issue does not affect the MX10001. This issue does not affect Juniper Networks Junos OS versions prior to 15.1F6, 16.1R1. Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved on ACX5800, EX9200 Series, MX10000 Series, MX240, MX480, MX960 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R2-EVO. This issue does not affect the MX10001.

Solutions

The following software releases have been updated to resolve this specific issue: Junos OS: 16.1R7-S8, 17.1R2-S12, 17.2R3-S4, 17.3R3-S8, 17.4R2-S10, 17.4R3-S2, 18.1R3-S10, 18.2R2-S7, 18.2R3-S3, 18.3R1-S7, 18.3R3-S2, 18.4R1-S7, 18.4R2-S4, 18.4R3-S2, 19.1R1-S5, 19.1R2-S1, 19.1R3, 19.2R1-S4, 19.2R2, 19.3R2-S3, 19.3R3, 19.4R1-S1, 19.4R2, 20.1R1, and all subsequent releases. Junos OS Evolved: 19.4R2-EVO, 20.1R1-EVO, and all subsequent releases.

Informations

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID	Nom de la faiblesse	Source
CWE-835	Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop') The product contains an iteration or loop with an exit condition that cannot be reached, i.e., an infinite loop.
CWE-670	Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation The code contains a control flow path that does not reflect the algorithm that the path is intended to implement, leading to incorrect behavior any time this path is navigated.

Metrics

Metric	Score	Sévérité	CVSS Vecteur	Source
V3.1	5.3	MEDIUM	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L 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. 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. Low Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to 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.
V2	5		AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P	[email protected]

EPSS

EPSS est un modèle de notation qui prédit la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée.

EPSS Score

Le modèle EPSS produit un score de probabilité compris entre 0 et 1 (0 et 100 %). Plus la note est élevée, plus la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée est grande.

EPSS Percentile

Le percentile est utilisé pour classer les CVE en fonction de leur score EPSS. Par exemple, une CVE dans le 95e percentile selon son score EPSS est plus susceptible d'être exploitée que 95 % des autres CVE. Ainsi, le percentile sert à comparer le score EPSS d'une CVE par rapport à d'autres CVE.

EPSS First.org