CVE-2023-27585
What it is
PJSIP is a free and open source multimedia communication library written in C. A buffer overflow vulnerability in versions 2.13 and prior affects applications that use PJSIP DNS resolver. It doesn't affect PJSIP users who do not utilise PJSIP DNS resolver. This vulnerability is related to CVE-2022-24793. The difference is that this issue is in parsing the query record `parse_query()`, while the issue in CVE-2022-24793 is in `parse_rr()`. A patch is available as commit `d1c5e4d` in the `master` branch. A workaround is to disable DNS resolution in PJSIP config (by setting `nameserver_count` to zero) or use an external resolver implementation instead.
At a glance
- Exploitability
- Can be exploited over the network without logging in. High risk of service disruption.
- Exploit odds
- 2.3% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Fix
- A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.
Timeline
- PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
- Last updatedMost recent change to the record
Why it ranks here
- Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
- Exploit odds: 2.3% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Severity: 7.5 HIGH (CVSS).
- Fix: a patch or advisory is linked.
Details
- Published
- Last modified
- Exploit probability
- 2.3% · EPSS, next 30 days
- Weakness
- CWE-120 · Classic buffer overflow
- Record status
- Modified
Affected
- Teluu Pjsip < 2.13
Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 7.5
- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges needed
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Is it in your code?
Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.
Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2023-27585.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2023-27585. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.
Fix and advisories
- https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/commit/d1c5e4da5bae7f220bc30719888bb389c905c0c5
- https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/security/advisories/GHSA-p6g5-v97c-w5q4
- https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/security/advisories/GHSA-q9cp-8wcq-7pfr
- https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/commit/d1c5e4da5bae7f220bc30719888bb389c905c0c5
- https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/security/advisories/GHSA-p6g5-v97c-w5q4
- https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/security/advisories/GHSA-q9cp-8wcq-7pfr
References
- https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/commit/d1c5e4da5bae7f220bc30719888bb389c905c0c5
- https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/security/advisories/GHSA-p6g5-v97c-w5q4
- https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/security/advisories/GHSA-q9cp-8wcq-7pfr
- https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/04/msg00020.html
- https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/08/msg00038.html
- https://www.debian.org/security/2023/dsa-5438
- https://www.pjsip.org/pjlib-util/docs/html/group__PJ__DNS__RESOLVER.htm
- https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/commit/d1c5e4da5bae7f220bc30719888bb389c905c0c5
- https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/security/advisories/GHSA-p6g5-v97c-w5q4
- https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/security/advisories/GHSA-q9cp-8wcq-7pfr
- https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/04/msg00020.html
- https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/08/msg00038.html
- https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/09/msg00030.html
- https://www.debian.org/security/2023/dsa-5438
- https://www.pjsip.org/pjlib-util/docs/html/group__PJ__DNS__RESOLVER.htm