CVE-2007-1823
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 · uneditedT-Mobile voice mail systems allow remote attackers to retrieve or remove messages, or reconfigure mailboxes, by spoofing Calling Number Identification (CNID, aka Caller ID).
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 confidenceT-Mobile's voicemail system trusted Caller ID (CNID) information without additional authentication, allowing remote attackers to spoof their calling number and gain unauthorized access to voicemail boxes to retrieve, delete, or reconfigure messages.
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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 voicemail service providerCheck your phone system's voicemail configuration or contact T-Mobile support to confirm the voicemail service is from T-Mobile and obtain the system version or model informationAffected if The voicemail service is provided by T-Mobile and uses Caller ID (CNID) as the sole authentication mechanism
-
Examine voicemail authentication settingsAccess the voicemail admin interface or configuration panel and review the authentication method settings to determine if Caller ID alone grants access without requiring a PIN or passwordAffected if Caller ID (CNID) is accepted as the sole credential for voicemail access without additional verification
-
Verify if multi-factor authentication is enabledCheck whether the voicemail system requires both Caller ID verification AND a secondary factor (such as a PIN, password, or security question) to access voicemail boxesAffected if The system does not require a secondary authentication factor beyond Caller ID verification
-
Test Caller ID spoofing susceptibilityIf permitted in your testing environment, attempt to access voicemail from an external line while spoofing the Caller ID to match an existing voicemail box number, observing if access is granted without PIN verificationAffected if Access is granted solely based on matching Caller ID without prompting for additional credentials
You are affected if your T-Mobile voicemail system relies on Caller ID alone for authentication without requiring a PIN, password, or other secondary verification method.
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 dataImplement multi-factor authentication (e.g., PIN/.password plus caller verification) for all voicemail access rather than relying solely on CNID, and deploy call authentication solutions like STIR/SHAKEN to verify caller identity.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-1823 — 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-2007-1823 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