dbcve.org
PjsipApplication

CVE-2026-32945

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-03-20
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 2.17 or later.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click Patch available

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 · unedited
PJSIP is a free and open source multimedia communication library written in C. Versions 2.16 and below have a Heap-based Buffer Overflowvulnerability in the DNS parser's name length handler. Thisimpacts applications using PJSIP's built-in DNS resolver, such as those configured with pjsua_config.nameserver or UaConfig.nameserver in PJSUA/PJSUA2. It does not affect users who rely on the OS resolver (e.g., getaddrinfo()) by not configuring a nameserver, or those using an external resolver via pjsip_resolver_set_ext_resolver(). This issue is fixed in version 2.17. For users unable to upgrade, a workaround is to disable DNS resolution in the PJSIP config (by setting nameserver_count to zero) or to use an external resolver implementation instead.

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 confidence

Heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in PJSIP's DNS parser's name length handler (versions 2.16 and below) allows remote exploitation via the built-in DNS resolver when nameservers are configured. Attackers can trigger the overflow through malicious DNS responses to crash the application or potentially achieve code execution.

MitigationUpgrade to PJSIP version 2.17 or later. As alternatives, disable the built-in DNS resolver by setting nameserver_count to zero in the configuration, or implement an external resolver via pjsip_resolver_set_ext_resolver().

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
PjsipApplication
Affected:< 2.17

CVSS 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

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify PJSIP version
    Query the installed PJSIP library version (e.g., via pjlib's version API, library file metadata, or package manager) and compare against the affected range (versions 2.16 and below, or any version less than 2.17)
    Affected if Installed version is 2.16 or below (less than 2.17)
  2. Confirm DNS resolver is in use
    Check whether the application uses PJSIP's built-in DNS resolver rather than an external resolver. This can be verified by reviewing the pjsua configuration or code that calls pjsip_resolver_set_ext_resolver() - if that function is NOT called, the built-in resolver is likely active
    Affected if Built-in DNS resolver is being used (external resolver not configured)
  3. Check nameserver configuration
    Examine the PJSIP DNS resolver configuration to determine if nameservers are configured. Specifically, inspect the nameserver_count setting and associated nameserver IP addresses in the PJSIP configuration or runtime state
    Affected if nameserver_count is greater than zero and at least one nameserver IP address is configured

A user is affected if they are running PJSIP version 2.16 or below with the built-in DNS resolver enabled and at least one nameserver configured, allowing malicious DNS responses to trigger the heap overflow.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 2.17 or later
Fixed in 2.17
Vendor patch github.com →
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to PJSIP version 2.17 or later. As alternatives, disable the built-in DNS resolver by setting nameserver_count to zero in the configuration, or implement an external resolver via pjsip_resolver_set_ext_resolver().

Recommended fix High confidence

2.17

  1. Upgrade PJSIP to version 2.17 or later from the official repository (https://github.com/pjsip/pjproject/releases)
  2. Rebuild and reinstall the PJSIP library with the new version
  3. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking that the version reports 2.17 or higher
  4. Test DNS resolution functionality to confirm the application works correctly with the fixed library
  5. For environments where upgrade is not immediately possible, set nameserver_count to zero in the PJSIP configuration to disable built-in DNS resolution, or configure an external resolver using pjsip_resolver_set_ext_resolver()

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Pjsip Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,750
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-32945 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-32945 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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