VulnerabilityPublished 18 Sep 2026Updated 24 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-84975: pjsip pjproject · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects pjsip pjprojectSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High.

Data as of 2 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
pjsippjproject	Affected <=2.17	Fixed in–
GitHubpjsip/pjproject`pkg:github/pjsip/pjproject`Other threats	Affected <=2.17	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Users should be aware of the risk when using OpenSSL or GnuTLS backends with PJSIP versions 2.17 and earlier and consider alternative mitigations such as using the mbedTLS backend, which is not affected. Monitor vendor advisories for updates and patches.

Description

PJSIP pjproject versions 2.17 and earlier have an improper certificate validation vulnerability in the OpenSSL and GnuTLS backends. The flaw involves incorrect handling of DNS SubjectAltName values containing embedded NUL bytes, allowing an attacker with a specially crafted certificate from a trusted issuer to impersonate a target server during TLS verification. This can lead to interception of SIP sessions and theft of REGISTER credentials. The mbedTLS backend is not affected. No fixed version is currently available.

Impact

An attacker with a trusted certificate containing a specially crafted DNS SubjectAltName can impersonate the target server during TLS verification, potentially intercepting SIP sessions and stealing REGISTER credentials. This compromises confidentiality and integrity of SIP communications but does not affect availability. The vulnerability requires the attacker to have a trusted certificate and the ability to intercept the connection.

Summary

In PJSIP pjproject versions 2.17 and earlier, the OpenSSL and GnuTLS backends improperly validate TLS server certificates by copying DNS SubjectAltName values using string functions that recalculate length and truncate at embedded NUL bytes. This allows a certificate with a DNS SubjectAltName consisting of the target hostname prefix followed by an embedded NUL and attacker-controlled suffix to be accepted as valid for the prefix hostname. An attacker possessing such a certificate from a trusted issuer and able to intercept the connection can impersonate the target server, complete SIP sessions, and capture REGISTER credentials. The mbedTLS backend is unaffected due to correct string length preservation.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-297Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product communicates with a host that provides a certificate, but the product does not properly ensure that the certificate is actually associated with that host.
Architecture and Design
In order to ensure data integrity, the certificate must be valid, and it must pertain to the site that is being accessed.Fully check the hostname of the certificate and provide the user with adequate information about the nature of the problem and how to proceed.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
Implementation
Be careful of other weaknesses in the code that checks the hostname, since it is still possible to incorrectly check the hostname. For example, attackers could create a certificate with a name that begins with a trusted name followed by a NUL byte, which could cause some string-based comparisons to only examine the…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.14.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Oct 2026, 23:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295, CWE-297

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats