Vulnerabilities > CVE-2020-1649 - Improper Input Validation vulnerability in Juniper Junos

047910
CVSS 5.0 - MEDIUM
Attack vector
NETWORK
Attack complexity
LOW
Privileges required
NONE
Confidentiality impact
NONE
Integrity impact
NONE
Availability impact
PARTIAL
network
low complexity
juniper
CWE-20

Summary

When a device running Juniper Networks Junos OS with MPC7, MPC8, or MPC9 line cards installed and the system is configured for inline IP reassembly, used by L2TP, MAP-E, GRE, and IPIP, the packet forwarding engine (PFE) will become disabled upon receipt of small fragments requiring reassembly, generating the following error messages: [LOG: Err] MQSS(2): WO: Packet Error - Error Packets 1, Connection 29 [LOG: Err] eachip_hmcif_rx_intr_handler(7259): EA[2:0]: HMCIF Rx: Injected checksum error detected on WO response - Chunk Address 0x0 [LOG: Err] MQSS(2): DRD: RORD1: CMD reorder ID error - Command 11, Reorder ID 1960, QID 0 [LOG: Err] MQSS(2): DRD: UNROLL0: HMC chunk address error in stage 5 - Chunk Address: 0xc38fb1 [LOG: Notice] Error: /fpc/0/pfe/0/cm/0/MQSS(2)/2/MQSS_CMERROR_DRD_RORD_ENG_INT_REG_CMD_FSM_STATE_ERR (0x2203cc), scope: pfe, category: functional, severity: major, module: MQSS(2), type: DRD_RORD_ENG_INT: CMD FSM State Error [LOG: Notice] Performing action cmalarm for error /fpc/0/pfe/0/cm/0/MQSS(2)/2/MQSS_CMERROR_DRD_RORD_ENG_INT_REG_CMD_FSM_STATE_ERR (0x2203cc) in module: MQSS(2) with scope: pfe category: functional level: major [LOG: Notice] Performing action get-state for error /fpc/0/pfe/0/cm/0/MQSS(2)/2/MQSS_CMERROR_DRD_RORD_ENG_INT_REG_CMD_FSM_STATE_ERR (0x2203cc) in module: MQSS(2) with scope: pfe category: functional level: major [LOG: Notice] Performing action disable-pfe for error /fpc/0/pfe/0/cm/0/MQSS(2)/2/MQSS_CMERROR_DRD_RORD_ENG_INT_REG_CMD_FSM_STATE_ERR (0x2203cc) in module: MQSS(2) with scope: pfe category: functional level: major By continuously sending fragmented packets that cannot be reassembled, an attacker can repeatedly disable the PFE causing a sustained Denial of Service (DoS). This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS: 17.2 versions prior to 17.2R3-S4 on MX Series; 17.3 versions prior to 17.3R3-S8 on MX Series; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R2-S9, 17.4R3-S1 on MX Series; 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R3-S10 on MX Series; 18.2 versions prior to 18.2R2-S6, 18.2R3-S3 on MX Series; 18.2X75 versions prior to 18.2X75-D34, 18.2X75-D41, 18.2X75-D53, 18.2X75-D65, 18.2X75-D430 on MX Series; 18.3 versions prior to 18.3R1-S7, 18.3R2-S4, 18.3R3-S2 on MX Series; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R1-S6, 18.4R2-S4, 18.4R3 on MX Series; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R1-S4, 19.1R2-S1, 19.1R3 on MX Series; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R1-S3, 19.2R2 on MX Series; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R2-S2, 19.3R3 on MX Series. This issue is specific to inline IP reassembly, introduced in Junos OS 17.2. Versions of Junos OS prior to 17.2 are unaffected by this vulnerability.

Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)

Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)

  • Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables
    This attack pattern involves causing a buffer overflow through manipulation of environment variables. Once the attacker finds that they can modify an environment variable, they may try to overflow associated buffers. This attack leverages implicit trust often placed in environment variables.
  • Server Side Include (SSI) Injection
    An attacker can use Server Side Include (SSI) Injection to send code to a web application that then gets executed by the web server. Doing so enables the attacker to achieve similar results to Cross Site Scripting, viz., arbitrary code execution and information disclosure, albeit on a more limited scale, since the SSI directives are nowhere near as powerful as a full-fledged scripting language. Nonetheless, the attacker can conveniently gain access to sensitive files, such as password files, and execute shell commands.
  • Cross Zone Scripting
    An attacker is able to cause a victim to load content into their web-browser that bypasses security zone controls and gain access to increased privileges to execute scripting code or other web objects such as unsigned ActiveX controls or applets. This is a privilege elevation attack targeted at zone-based web-browser security. In a zone-based model, pages belong to one of a set of zones corresponding to the level of privilege assigned to that page. Pages in an untrusted zone would have a lesser level of access to the system and/or be restricted in the types of executable content it was allowed to invoke. In a cross-zone scripting attack, a page that should be assigned to a less privileged zone is granted the privileges of a more trusted zone. This can be accomplished by exploiting bugs in the browser, exploiting incorrect configuration in the zone controls, through a cross-site scripting attack that causes the attackers' content to be treated as coming from a more trusted page, or by leveraging some piece of system functionality that is accessible from both the trusted and less trusted zone. This attack differs from "Restful Privilege Escalation" in that the latter correlates to the inadequate securing of RESTful access methods (such as HTTP DELETE) on the server, while cross-zone scripting attacks the concept of security zones as implemented by a browser.
  • Cross Site Scripting through Log Files
    An attacker may leverage a system weakness where logs are susceptible to log injection to insert scripts into the system's logs. If these logs are later viewed by an administrator through a thin administrative interface and the log data is not properly HTML encoded before being written to the page, the attackers' scripts stored in the log will be executed in the administrative interface with potentially serious consequences. This attack pattern is really a combination of two other attack patterns: log injection and stored cross site scripting.
  • Command Line Execution through SQL Injection
    An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.