CVE-2025-60011VulnerabilityPublished 15 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-60011: Juniper Networks Junos OS · Unchecked Error Condition

Affects Juniper Networks Junos OSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.8 Medium · fixed in 24.4R2 : update Juniper Networks Junos OS when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.8Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 24.4R2, 24.2R2-S2, 23.4R2-S6 +7

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: 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.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: 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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Jan 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Juniper NetworksJunos OS	Affected <22.4R3-S8 >=23.2 <23.2R2-S5 >=23.4 <23.4R2-S6 >=24.2 <24.2R2-S2 >=24.4 <24.4R2	Fixed in 24.4R2 24.2R2-S2 23.4R2-S6 23.2R2-S5 22.4R3-S8
Juniper NetworksJunos OS Evolved	Affected <22.4R3-S8-EVO >=23.2 <23.2R2-S5-EVO >=23.4 <23.4R2-S6-EVO >=24.2 <24.2R2-S2-EVO >=24.4 <24.4R2-EVO	Fixed in 24.4R2-EVO 24.2R2-S2-EVO 23.4R2-S6-EVO 23.2R2-S5-EVO 22.4R3-S8-EVO

AI-suggested

Organizations should prioritize upgrading Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved to the fixed versions listed: 22.4R3-S8 or later, 23.2R2-S5 or later, 23.4R2-S6 or later, 24.2R2-S2 or later, and 24.4R2 or later, including their EVO counterparts. Network administrators should audit their routing infrastructure to identify affected devices and schedule maintenance windows for patch deployment. In parallel, implement strict BGP session filtering and validation controls to limit acceptance of unexpected or malformed BGP attributes from external peers. Employ BGP monitoring tools to detect abnormal session resets or routing churn indicative of exploitation attempts. Consider deploying route validation mechanisms such as RPKI to enhance BGP security posture. Network segmentation and limiting BGP session exposure to trusted peers can reduce attack surface. Maintain up-to-date backups of router configurations and have incident response plans ready for rapid remediation. Engage with Juniper support for guidance and monitor security advisories for any emerging exploit reports or additional mitigations.

Description

CVE-2025-60011 is a medium severity vulnerability in Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved affecting the routing protocol daemon (rpd). An unauthenticated, network-based attacker can send a crafted optional, transitive BGP attribute that is improperly checked and modified by the affected device before propagation. This causes peers to detect malformed attributes and likely terminate BGP sessions, resulting in routing instability and availability impact. The vulnerability affects multiple versions of Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved prior to specific patched releases. Exploitation does not require authentication or user interaction but can cause significant network disruption. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild. European organizations relying on Juniper routing infrastructure could experience network outages and degraded service availability. Mitigation requires timely patching to fixed Junos OS versions. Countries with high Juniper market penetration and critical network infrastructure are most at risk.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability can lead to significant network availability issues, especially for those relying on Juniper routing devices for BGP peering and internet or inter-network connectivity. The forced termination of BGP sessions can cause routing instability, increased latency, packet loss, and potential outages of critical services dependent on stable network routes. This can affect ISPs, data centers, cloud providers, financial institutions, and enterprises with complex network topologies. The disruption of routing information propagation can also impact redundancy and failover mechanisms, increasing the risk of prolonged downtime. Given the unauthenticated nature of the exploit, attackers from outside the network perimeter can trigger these effects, raising concerns for border routers and peering points. The impact extends beyond a single device to downstream devices and networks relying on the affected BGP sessions, amplifying the scope of disruption. This can hinder business continuity, regulatory compliance (e.g., GDPR mandates on service availability), and damage organizational reputation.

Summary

CVE-2025-60011 is a vulnerability classified under CWE-754 (Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions) found in the routing protocol daemon (rpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved. The flaw arises when the affected device receives a specific optional, transitive BGP attribute over an established BGP session. Instead of correctly validating and propagating this attribute, the device erroneously modifies it before forwarding to its BGP peers. These peers then detect the attribute as malformed and typically respond by terminating the BGP session with the affected device. This termination leads to routing churn and an availability impact on downstream devices relying on these BGP sessions for routing information. The vulnerability can be exploited remotely by an unauthenticated attacker who can send crafted BGP updates, requiring no prior access or user interaction. The affected Junos OS versions include all releases before 22.4R3-S8, certain 23.2, 23.4, 24.2, and 24.4 versions, and corresponding Junos OS Evolved versions before their respective patch releases. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 5.8 (medium severity), reflecting network attack vector, no privileges required, no user interaction, and a scope change due to impact on downstream devices. Although no exploits are known in the wild yet, the vulnerability poses a risk of network instability and denial of service through BGP session disruption. Juniper has published patches in the indicated versions to address this issue.

CWE-754Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
Implementation
If using exception handling, catch and throw specific exceptions instead of overly-general exceptions (CWE-396, CWE-397). Catch and handle exceptions as locally as possible so that exceptions do not propagate too far up the call stack (CWE-705). Avoid unchecked or uncaught exceptions where feasible (CWE-248).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 22 Jan 2026, 21:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-754

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats