CVE-2025-59957 : Détail

CVE-2025-59957

7
/
Haute
A07-Identif. and Authent. Fail
0.01%V4
Physical
2025-10-09
15h43 +00:00
2025-10-09
19h49 +00:00
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

Junos OS: EX4600 Series and QFX5000 Series: An attacker with physical access can open a persistent backdoor

An Origin Validation Error vulnerability in an insufficient protected file of Juniper Networks Junos OS on EX4600 Series and QFX5000 Series allows an unauthenticated attacker with physical access to the device to create a backdoor which allows complete control of the system. When a device isn't configured with a root password, an attacker can modify a specific file. It's contents will be added to the Junos configuration of the device without being visible. This allows for the addition of any configuration unknown to the actual operator, which includes users, IP addresses and other configuration which could allow unauthorized access to the device. This exploit is persistent across reboots and even zeroization. The indicator of compromise is a modified /etc/config/-defaults[-flex].conf file. Review that file for unexpected configuration statements, or compare it to an unmodified version which can be extracted from the original Juniper software image file. For details on the extraction procedure please contact Juniper Technical Assistance Center (JTAC). To restore the device to a trusted initial configuration the system needs to be reinstalled from physical media.  This issue affects Junos OS on EX4600 Series and QFX5000 Series: * All versions before 21.4R3, * 22.2 versions before 22.2R3-S3.

Solutions du CVE

The following software releases have been updated to resolve this specific issue: 21.4R3, 22.2R3-S3, 22.3R1, and all subsequent releases.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-346 Origin Validation Error
The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V4.0 7 HIGH CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/AU:N/R:U/RE:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Physical

The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable system. Physical interaction may be brief (e.g., evil maid attack1) or persistent. An example of such an attack is a cold boot attack in which an attacker gains access to disk encryption keys after physically accessing the target system. Other examples include peripheral attacks via FireWire/USB Direct Memory Access (DMA).

Attack Complexity

This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit.

Low

The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements

This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack.

None

The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

None

The attacker is unauthenticated 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 system.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. 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 managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Vulnerable System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system 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 Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).

Sub Confidentiality Impact

Negligible

There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Integrity Impact

None

There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Availability Impact

None

There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Threat Metrics

The Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure.

Supplemental Metrics

Supplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer.

Automatable

The “Automatable” metric captures the answer to the question ”Can an attacker automate exploitation events for this vulnerability across multiple targets?” based on steps 1-4 of the kill chain2 [Hutchins et al., 2011]. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation. If evaluated, the metric can take the values no or yes.

No

Attackers cannot reliably automate all 4 steps of the kill chain for this vulnerability for some reason. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation.

Recovery

Recovery describes the resilience of a system to recover services, in terms of performance and availability, after an attack has been performed.

User

The system requires manual intervention by the user to recover services, after an attack has been performed.

Vulnerability Response Effort

The intention of the Vulnerability Response Effort metric is to provide supplemental information on how difficult it is for consumers to provide an initial response to the impact of vulnerabilities for deployed products and services in their infrastructure.

High

The actions required to respond to a vulnerability are significant and/or difficult, and may possibly lead to an extended, scheduled service impact. This would need to be considered for scheduling purposes including honoring any embargo on deployment of the selected response. Alternatively, response to the vulnerability in the field is not possible remotely. The only resolution to the vulnerability involves physical replacement (e.g. units deployed would have to be recalled for a depot level repair or replacement). Examples include: a highly privileged driver update, microcode or UEFI BIOS updates, or software upgrades requiring careful analysis and understanding of any potential infrastructure impact before implementation. A UEFI BIOS update that impacts Trusted Platform Module (TPM) attestation without impacting disk encryption software such as Bit locker is a good recent example. Irreparable failures such as non-bootable flash subsystems, failed disks or solid-state drives (SSD), bad memory modules, network devices, or other non-recoverable under warranty hardware, should also be scored as having a High effort.

V3.1 6.8 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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.

Physical

The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief (e.g., evil maid attack1) or persistent. An example of such an attack is a cold boot attack in which an attacker gains access to disk encryption keys after physically accessing the target system. Other examples include peripheral attacks via FireWire/USB Direct Memory Access (DMA).

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.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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.

EPSS

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

Score EPSS

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.

Percentile EPSS

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.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Juniper>>Junos >> Version To (excluding) 21.4

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 21.4

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 21.4

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 21.4

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 21.4

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 21.4

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 21.4

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 21.4

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 22.2

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 22.2

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 22.2

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 22.2

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 22.2

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 22.2

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 22.2

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 22.2

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 22.2

Juniper>>Junos >> Version 22.2

Juniper>>Ex4600 >> Version -

Juniper>>Ex4650 >> Version -

Juniper>>Qfx5110 >> Version -

Juniper>>Qfx5120 >> Version -

Juniper>>Qfx5130 >> Version -

Juniper>>Qfx5200 >> Version -

Juniper>>Qfx5210 >> Version -

Juniper>>Qfx5220 >> Version -

Juniper>>Qfx5230-64cd >> Version -

Juniper>>Qfx5240 >> Version -

Juniper>>Qfx5241 >> Version -

Juniper>>Qfx5700 >> Version -

Références