Skip to main content

CVE-2026-116790signalwire freeswitch authentication bypass by spoofing

High priorityCritical9.1EPSS not scored yet

CVE-2026-116790 is a authentication bypass by spoofing in signalwire freeswitch, rated critical (9.1 on CVSS 3.1).

Why this priority: Critical, and reachable over the network without an account.

Published · Updated · NVD status: Analyzed

What it is

Identity is trusted from something an attacker can fake, such as an address or header. A cryptographic signature is not checked properly, so forged data is accepted.

How it is reached

An attacker can exploit it over the network, without an account, and nobody has to click anything.

What an attacker gains

A successful attack can change data or behaviour and take it offline. In practice, this kind of flaw lets an attacker act as a signed-in user, or an administrator, without valid credentials.

Is it being exploited?

There is no public report of exploitation yet. It can be exploited automatically, at scale.

What to do

  1. Upgrade signalwire freeswitch to 1.11.2 or later. The patch notes are linked below.
  2. Until it is patched, keep it off the internet or behind a VPN, allowlist or authenticating proxy.

Description from NVD

FreeSWITCH is a Software Defined Telecom Stack enabling the digital transformation from proprietary telecom switches to a software implementation that runs on any commodity hardware. Prior to 1.11.2, FreeSWITCH's inbound ICE handling accepted every connectivity check without cryptographically validating its STUN MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute. A network peer able to reach an ICE-enabled leg's media port could forge an ICE connectivity check without SDP credentials, nominate its own address, redirect RTP and DTLS traffic, and terminate the legitimate media path. On unencrypted legs this enables eavesdropping and media injection, while all WebRTC and SIP legs that negotiate ICE are in scope. Version 1.11.2 introduces the remediation, which requires ice_verify_message_integrity=true.

What this means for your architecture.

A CVE names a product. Whether it matters depends on where that product sits in your systems: what reaches it, which trust boundary it guards and what it can reach once compromised. Veriom maps your components, their relationships and your trust boundaries from your code, cloud and delivery evidence, so you can see where a component like this sits. The radar itself does not look at your systems.

Components it touches

  • Sign-in, session and token handling. The flaw sits between anonymous callers and authenticated sessions.
  • Identity providers and SSO. The flaw sits between anonymous callers and authenticated sessions.
  • TLS termination and service-to-service channels. The flaw sits on the network path between clients and services.
  • Signature checks. The flaw sits on the network path between clients and services.

Trust boundaries in play

  • Internet-facing entry points. No account is needed. Any instance reachable from outside your perimeter, through a load balancer, gateway, VPN or exposed admin port, is in scope.
  • Between anonymous callers and authenticated sessions. An attacker who crosses it can act as a signed-in user, or an administrator, without valid credentials.
  • On the network path between clients and services. An attacker who crosses it can read or tamper with traffic, or pass a forged message as genuine.

Questions to answer about your own systems

  • Where does signalwire freeswitch run in your systems, and at which version?
  • Which of those instances can be reached from the internet or partner networks?
  • What can it reach once compromised: which data stores, secrets and services?

Sources

  • CVE records and CVSS scores from the NVD CVE API. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
  • Exploitation status from CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
  • Exploit likelihood from FIRST’s Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), refreshed daily.
  • Explanations are written by Veriom from fixed templates over each record’s data, not by a person reviewing each CVE. Descriptions are quoted from the records as published.