CVE-2017-16872
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Teluu pjproject (pjlib and pjlib-util) in PJSIP before 2.7.1. Parsing the numeric header fields in a SIP message (like cseq, ttl, port, etc.) all had the potential to overflow, either causing unintended values to be captured or, if the values were subsequently converted back to strings, a buffer overrun. This will lead to a potential exploit using carefully crafted invalid values.
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 confidenceInteger overflow vulnerability in PJSIP's pjlib and pjlib-util libraries when parsing numeric SIP header fields (cseq, ttl, port, etc.). Crafted invalid values in these headers can cause overflow during parsing, leading to either incorrect captured values or buffer overrun when values are converted back to strings.
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 data= 9.0< 2.7.1CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 installed PJSIP library versionRun 'dpkg -l | grep -i pjsip' on Debian systems, or check the library file with 'ls -la /usr/lib/*/libpjsip*.so*' and then 'objdump -p /path/to/libpjsip.so | grep Version' to find the built-in version stringAffected if The reported PJSIP version is less than 2.7.1 or the version cannot be determined (indicating an older build)
-
Confirm operating system versionRun 'cat /etc/debian_version' or 'lsb_release -r' to identify the Debian releaseAffected if Running Debian Linux version 9.0 specifically
-
Identify applications using PJSIPRun 'ldconfig -p | grep pjsip' to list linked applications, or check running processes that handle SIP traffic (e.g., Asterisk, FreeSWITCH, custom SIP applications)Affected if Any SIP-enabled application is linked against a vulnerable PJSIP library version
-
Verify SIP message processing is activeCheck if the system is configured to receive or process SIP requests by reviewing SIP configuration files or monitoring SIP traffic on port 5060/5061 with 'netstat -an | grep -E "(5060|5061)"'Affected if The system actively parses SIP headers including numeric fields like cseq, ttl, or port values
-
Review application dependenciesCheck application-specific dependency lists or package manifests for pjproject or pjsip package requirementsAffected if The application declares a dependency on pjsip or pjproject with a version constraint that resolves to less than 2.7.1
A system is affected if it runs any version of PJSIP/pjsip library prior to 2.7.1, or is running Debian 9.0 with the system-provided PJSIP package, and actively processes SIP traffic that could contain crafted numeric header values.
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.
dbcve · scoped2.7.1
Upgrade PJSIP to version 2.7.1 or later which contains the fix for the numeric header parsing overflow. If upgrading is not immediately possible, review and sanitize numeric header field inputs at application layer boundaries.
PJSIP 2.7.1 or later
- Identify the current version of pjproject/pjsip installed in the system
- For Debian 9.0 systems: run 'apt-get update && apt-get install pjsip' to apply available security updates
- If installing from source: download pjproject version 2.7.1 or later from the official PJSIP repository
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the installed pjproject version matches 2.7.1 or higher
- Test SIP message parsing functionality to ensure the upgrade does not break legitimate functionality
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-16872 — 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-2017-16872 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