Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

Juniper Junos OS Improper Isolation or Compartmentalization Vulnerability

Exploited · KEV 2025-03-13CVE-2025-21590CWE-653

Exploited since 2025-03-13. No WAF vendor names it yet.

Edge rules
0/8
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
6.7
EPSS
1.7% Top 22%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2025-03-12
An Improper Isolation or Compartmentalization vulnerability in the kernel of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows a local attacker with high privileges to compromise the integrity of the device. A local attacker with access to the shell is… More

An Improper Isolation or Compartmentalization vulnerability in the kernel of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows a local attacker with high privileges to compromise the integrity of the device. A local attacker with access to the shell is able to inject arbitrary code which can compromise an affected device. This issue is not exploitable from the Junos CLI. This issue affects Junos OS:  * All versions before 21.2R3-S9, * 21.4 versions before 21.4R3-S10,  * 22.2 versions before 22.2R3-S6,  * 22.4 versions before 22.4R3-S6,  * 23.2 versions before 23.2R2-S3,  * 23.4 versions before 23.4R2-S4, * 24.2 versions before 24.2R1-S2, 24.2R2.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2025-21590: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 4.0
Medium · 6.7 / 10

Exploitable with local access, with high privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of integrity.

Needs local accessAdmin login neededNo user actionWorks reliablySerious impact
How the score is built11 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker needs local access, or must trick a user into opening something on the machine.
    Local
  • Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Attack requirementsThe attack works without any special deployment or timing conditions.
    None
  • Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an administrator-level account.
    High
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)No data is exposed.
    None
  • Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impact (vulnerable system)The component keeps working normally.
    None
  • Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems' data is not exposed.
    None
  • Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.
    None
  • Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.
    None
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationActive

Attackers are exploiting this in the wild.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

None found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

  1. 2025-03-12
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2025-03-13
    Added to CISA KEV
    Confirmed exploitation in the wild

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.