CVE-2025-47779
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 · uneditedAsterisk is an open-source private branch exchange (PBX). Prior to versions 18.26.2, 20.14.1, 21.9.1, and 22.4.1 of Asterisk and versions 18.9-cert14 and 20.7-cert5 of certified-asterisk, SIP requests of the type MESSAGE (RFC 3428) authentication do not get proper alignment. An authenticated attacker can spoof any user identity to send spam messages to the user with their authorization token. Abuse of this security issue allows authenticated attackers to send fake chat messages can be spoofed to appear to come from trusted entities. Even administrators who follow Security best practices and Security Considerations can be impacted. Therefore, abuse can lead to spam and enable social engineering, phishing and similar attacks. Versions 18.26.2, 20.14.1, 21.9.1, and 22.4.1 of Asterisk and versions 18.9-cert14 and 20.7-cert5 of certified-asterisk fix the issue.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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< 18.26.2>= 20.0.0, < 20.14.1>= 21.0.0, < 21.9.1>= 22.0.0, < 22.4.1< 18.9= 18.9= 20.7CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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 · scoped18.918.26.220.14.1
Upgrade to Asterisk 18.26.2 / 20.14.1 / 21.9.1 / 22.4.1 (or certified-asterisk 18.9-cert14 / 20.7-cert5)
- Identify the current Asterisk version in use (e.g., run `asterisk -V` or check package version)
- Determine which major version branch is running (Asterisk 18.x, 20.x, 21.x, 22.x, or certified-asterisk 18.x or 20.x)
- For Asterisk 18.x users: Upgrade to version 18.26.2 or later
- For Asterisk 20.x users: Upgrade to version 20.14.1 or later
- For Asterisk 21.x users: Upgrade to version 21.9.1 or later
- For Asterisk 22.x users: Upgrade to version 22.4.1 or later
- For certified-asterisk 18.x users: Upgrade to version 18.9-cert14
- For certified-asterisk 20.x users: Upgrade to version 20.7-cert5
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-2025-47779 — 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-2025-47779 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