Vulnerabilities > CVE-2021-0207 - Interpretation Conflict vulnerability in Juniper Junos
Summary
An improper interpretation conflict of certain data between certain software components within the Juniper Networks Junos OS devices does not allow certain traffic to pass through the device upon receipt from an ingress interface filtering certain specific types of traffic which is then being redirected to an egress interface on a different VLAN. This causes a Denial of Service (DoS) to those clients sending these particular types of traffic. Such traffic being sent by a client may appear genuine, but is non-standard in nature and should be considered as potentially malicious, and can be targeted to the device, or destined through it for the issue to occur. This issues affects IPv4 and IPv6 traffic. An indicator of compromise may be found by checking log files. You may find that traffic on the input interface has 100% of traffic flowing into the device, yet the egress interface shows 0 pps leaving the device. For example: [show interfaces "interface" statistics detail] Output between two interfaces would reveal something similar to: Ingress, first interface: -------------------- Interface Link Input packets (pps) Output packets (pps) et-0/0/0 Up 9999999999 (9999) 1 (0) -------------------- Egress, second interface: -------------------- Interface Link Input packets (pps) Output packets (pps) et-0/0/1 Up 0 (0) 9999999999 (0) -------------------- Dropped packets will not show up in DDoS monitoring/protection counters as issue is not caused by anti-DDoS protection mechanisms. This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS: 17.3 versions prior to 17.3R3-S7 on NFX250, QFX5K Series, EX4600; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R2-S11, 17.4R3-S3 on NFX250, QFX5K Series, EX4600; 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R3-S9 on NFX250, QFX5K Series, EX2300 Series, EX3400 Series, EX4600; 18.2 versions prior to 18.2R3-S3 on NFX250, QFX5K Series, EX2300 Series, EX3400 Series, EX4300 Multigigabit, EX4600; 18.3 versions prior to 18.3R3-S1 on NFX250, QFX5K Series, EX2300 Series, EX3400 Series, EX4300 Multigigabit, EX4600 Series; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R1-S5, 18.4R2-S3, 18.4R3 on NFX250, QFX5K Series, EX2300 Series, EX3400 Series, EX4300 Multigigabit, EX4600 Series; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R1-S5, 19.1R2-S1, 19.1R3 on NFX250, QFX5K Series, EX2300 Series, EX3400 Series, EX4300 Multigigabit, EX4600 Series; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R1-S5, 19.2R2 on NFX250, QFX5K Series, EX2300 Series, EX3400 Series, EX4300 Multigigabit, EX4600 Series; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R2-S3, 19.3R3 on NFX250, QFX5K Series, EX2300 Series, EX3400 Series, EX4300 Multigigabit, EX4600 Series; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R1-S2, 19.4R2 on NFX250, NFX350, QFX5K Series, EX2300 Series, EX3400 Series, EX4300 Multigigabit, EX4600 Series. This issue does not affect Junos OS releases prior to 17.2R2.
Vulnerable Configurations
| Part | Description | Count |
|---|---|---|
| OS | 110 | |
| Hardware | 13 |
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)
- HTTP Request Splitting HTTP Request Splitting (also known as HTTP Request Smuggling) is an attack pattern where an attacker attempts to insert additional HTTP requests in the body of the original (enveloping) HTTP request in such a way that the browser interprets it as one request but the web server interprets it as two. There are several ways to perform HTTP request splitting attacks. One way is to include double Content-Length headers in the request to exploit the fact that the devices parsing the request may each use a different header. Another way is to submit an HTTP request with a "Transfer Encoding: chunked" in the request header set with setRequestHeader to allow a payload in the HTTP Request that can be considered as another HTTP Request by a subsequent parsing entity. A third way is to use the "Double CR in an HTTP header" technique. There are also a few less general techniques targeting specific parsing vulnerabilities in certain web servers.
- HTTP Response Smuggling An attacker injects content into a server response that is interpreted differently by intermediaries than it is by the target browser. To do this, it takes advantage of inconsistent or incorrect interpretations of the HTTP protocol by various applications. For example, it might use different block terminating characters (CR or LF alone), adding duplicate header fields that browsers interpret as belonging to separate responses, or other techniques. Consequences of this attack can include response-splitting, cross-site scripting, apparent defacement of targeted sites, cache poisoning, or similar actions.
- HTTP Request Smuggling HTTP Request Smuggling results from the discrepancies in parsing HTTP requests between HTTP entities such as web caching proxies or application firewalls. Entities such as web servers, web caching proxies, application firewalls or simple proxies often parse HTTP requests in slightly different ways. Under specific situations where there are two or more such entities in the path of the HTTP request, a specially crafted request is seen by two attacked entities as two different sets of requests. This allows certain requests to be smuggled through to a second entity without the first one realizing it.