CVE-2022-26651
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 Asterisk through 19.x and Certified Asterisk through 16.8-cert13. The func_odbc module provides possibly inadequate escaping functionality for backslash characters in SQL queries, resulting in user-provided data creating a broken SQL query or possibly a SQL injection. This is fixed in 16.25.2, 18.11.2, and 19.3.2, and 16.8-cert14.
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 analysisUser input is woven into a database query, letting an attacker rewrite the query's logic. From there they can read, alter, or destroy data — frequently the entire database. The reliable fix is parameterised queries (prepared statements), so input is always treated as data and never as SQL.
General guidance for the sql injection class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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= 10.0= 11.0>= 16.0.0, < 16.25.2>= 18.0, < 18.11.2>= 19.0.0, < 19.3.2= 16.8CVSS 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:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 · scoped16.25.218.11.219.3.2
Asterisk 16.25.2, 18.11.2, or 19.3.2 (or Certified Asterisk 16.8-cert14)
- 1. Identify the currently installed Asterisk version using 'asterisk -V' or 'asterisk -rx "core show version"'
- 2. Backup the current Asterisk configuration directory (/etc/asterisk) and any custom scripts
- 3. For Debian systems, update the package repository: 'apt update'
- 4. For Debian 10/11 with Asterisk: install the updated package via 'apt install asterisk' to get the latest available version
- 5. Alternatively, download the specific fixed version from downloads.asterisk.org (16.25.2, 18.11.2, or 19.3.2) and compile/install from source
- 6. If using Certified Asterisk 16.8, upgrade to version 16.8-cert14
- 7. Verify the func_odbc module is properly loaded after upgrade: 'asterisk -rx "module show like odbc"'
- 8. Test that ODBC functions and database queries work correctly with the new version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-26651 — 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-2022-26651 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