Skip to content

CVE-2026-57019

Is CVE-2026-57019 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
6.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.3%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-1284
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

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

An Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (pfe) of Juniper Networks Junos OS on MX Series allows an unauthenticated, adjacent attacker to cause a Denial-of-Service (DoS). When a specific packet is received from device in the same broadcast domain, an affected system calculates the packet size incorrectly. This causes further packet processing to fail, which triggers an FPC major error, resulting in a FPC reset impacting traffic until the FPC has automatically recovered. Affected scenarios are: MAP-T, or non-IP traffic encapsulated in IP (e.g. MPLS over GRE). When this issue happens the following logs can be observed: fpc<#> CMError: /fpc/0/pfe/0/cm/0/MQSS(0)/0/MQSS_CMERROR_LI_INT_REG_UNROLL_TAIL_LENGTH_OVF (0x2205eb), scope: pfe, category: functional, severity: major, module: MQSS(0), type: LI: Unroll TAIL length overflow, oc_category: default fpc<#> Performing action reset-fru for error /fpc/0/pfe/0/cm/0/MQSS(0)/0/MQSS_CMERROR_LI_INT_REG_UNROLL_TAIL_LENGTH_OVF (0x2205eb) in module: MQSS(0) with scope: pfe category: functional level: major, oc_category: default This issue affects Junos OS on MX Series: * all versions before 23.2R2-S6, * 23.4 versions before 23.4R2-S7, * 24.2 versions before 24.2R2-S4, * 24.4 versions before 24.4R2-S4, * 25.2 versions before 25.2R2.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-57019
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-57019/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-57019)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-57019"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-57019/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-57019"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-1284.