CVE-2017-9359
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 · uneditedThe multi-part body parser in PJSIP, as used in Asterisk Open Source 13.x before 13.15.1 and 14.x before 14.4.1, Certified Asterisk 13.13 before 13.13-cert4, and other products, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read and application crash) via a crafted packet.
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 multi-part body parser in PJSIP, as used in Asterisk, contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Remote attackers can send a crafted SIP packet with specially crafted multi-part body content to trigger the vulnerability, causing an out-of-bounds memory read leading to application crash and denial of service.
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= 13.0.0= 13.1.0= 13.2.0= 13.3.0= 13.4.0= 13.5.0= 13.6.0= 13.7.0= 13.8.0= 13.8.1= 13.8.2= 13.9.0= 13.13.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Determine installed Asterisk versionRun 'asterisk -V' or 'core show version' from the CLIAffected if Version matches 13.0.0 through 13.9.0, or is exactly 13.13.0 (Certified)
-
Verify PJSIP module is loadedFrom Asterisk CLI, run 'module show like pjsip' to list loaded PJSIP modulesAffected if res_pjsip.so or related PJSIP modules are loaded
-
Check for active PJSIP endpointsFrom Asterisk CLI, run 'pjsip show endpoints' to list configured endpointsAffected if One or more PJSIP endpoints are configured and enabled
-
Confirm SIP transport is listeningRun 'pjsip show transports' from CLI or check system ports with 'netstat -tlnp | grep 5060'Affected if A UDP or TCP SIP transport is listening on port 5060 or other SIP ports
You are affected if you run a vulnerable Asterisk version (13.0.0-13.9.0 or 13.13.0 Certified) AND have PJSIP enabled with an active SIP transport accepting incoming connections.
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 dataUpgrade Asterisk to version 13.15.1 or later (13.x branch), 14.4.1 or later (14.x branch), or 13.13-cert4 or later (Certified 13.x) to incorporate the patched PJSIP library.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9359 — 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-2017-9359 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