CVE-2005-1809
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedSony Ericsson P900 Beamer allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (panic) via an obexftp session with a long filename in an OBEX File Transfer or OBEX Object Push.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe Sony Ericsson P900 Beamer contains a vulnerability in its OBEX (Object Exchange) protocol handling. A remote attacker can trigger a denial of service by initiating an obexftp session with an excessively long filename, causing the device to panic (crash/freeze). The vulnerability affects both OBEX File Transfer and OBEX Object Push services.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the device modelVerify the device is a Sony P900 or P900i by checking the device label, settings menu (Settings > About), or packaging. This vulnerability only affects the Sony P900 platform.Affected if The device is a Sony P900 or P900i (all firmware versions are affected)
-
Confirm OBEX services are enabledOn the P900, go to Settings > Connectivity > Bluetooth > OBEX Services. Check if 'OBEX File Transfer' or 'OBEX Object Push' is enabled. Alternatively, attempt to access the device via obexftp from a paired Bluetooth device.Affected if Either OBEX File Transfer or OBEX Object Push service is enabled on the device
-
Verify Bluetooth visibility and pairing statusCheck Settings > Connectivity > Bluetooth > Visibility. Determine if the device is set to 'Visible' or 'Hidden'. Also review the paired devices list in Settings > Connectivity > Bluetooth > Paired Devices.Affected if The device is Bluetooth-visible or is paired with untrusted or unknown Bluetooth hosts
-
Test for active OBEX listenerFrom a paired Bluetooth host, attempt to initiate an OBEX file transfer connection using tools like obexftp or a Bluetooth OBEX client. Observe if the device accepts the connection.Affected if The device accepts incoming OBEX connections from a paired host
The user is affected if they own a Sony P900 device with OBEX File Transfer or OBEX Object Push services enabled and the device is exposed to Bluetooth connections from untrusted hosts.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataSince this is a legacy device (circa 2003-2004) with no available vendor patches, the primary mitigation is to avoid connecting the device to untrusted Bluetooth hosts and to disable OBEX services when not needed. Network-level Bluetooth access controls and physical isolation can also reduce exposure.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-1809 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2005-1809 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data