CVE-2025-7394 (GCVE-0-2025-7394)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2025-07-18 22:34
Modified
2025-07-21 15:00
Severity ?
7.0 (High) - CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N
CWE
  • CWE-200 - Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
Summary
In the OpenSSL compatibility layer implementation, the function RAND_poll() was not behaving as expected and leading to the potential for predictable values returned from RAND_bytes() after fork() is called. This can lead to weak or predictable random numbers generated in applications that are both using RAND_bytes() and doing fork() operations. This only affects applications explicitly calling RAND_bytes() after fork() and does not affect any internal TLS operations. Although RAND_bytes() documentation in OpenSSL calls out not being safe for use with fork() without first calling RAND_poll(), an additional code change was also made in wolfSSL to make RAND_bytes() behave similar to OpenSSL after a fork() call without calling RAND_poll(). Now the Hash-DRBG used gets reseeded after detecting running in a new process. If making use of RAND_bytes() and calling fork() we recommend updating to the latest version of wolfSSL. Thanks to Per Allansson from Appgate for the report.
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
wolfSSL wolfSSL Version: 3.15.0
 Create a notification for this product.
Show details on NVD website

To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2025-7394",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "no"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "partial"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2025-07-21T15:00:11.053980Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2025-07-21T15:00:21.780Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "product": "wolfSSL",
          "repo": "https://github.com/wolfssl/wolfssl",
          "vendor": "wolfSSL",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThanOrEqual": "5.8.0",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.15.0",
              "versionType": "git"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "finder",
          "value": "Per Allansson"
        }
      ],
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: transparent;\"\u003eIn the OpenSSL compatibility layer implementation, the function RAND_poll() was not behaving as expected and leading to the potential for predictable values returned from RAND_bytes() after fork() is called. This can lead to weak or predictable random numbers generated in applications that are both using RAND_bytes() and doing fork() operations. This only affects applications explicitly calling RAND_bytes() after fork() and does not affect any internal TLS operations. Although RAND_bytes() documentation in OpenSSL calls out not being safe for use with fork() without first calling RAND_poll(), an additional code change was also made in wolfSSL to make RAND_bytes() behave similar to OpenSSL after a fork() call without calling RAND_poll(). Now the Hash-DRBG used gets reseeded after detecting running in a new process. If making use of RAND_bytes() and calling fork() we recommend updating to the latest version of wolfSSL. Thanks to Per Allansson from Appgate for the report.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e"
            }
          ],
          "value": "In the OpenSSL compatibility layer implementation, the function RAND_poll() was not behaving as expected and leading to the potential for predictable values returned from RAND_bytes() after fork() is called. This can lead to weak or predictable random numbers generated in applications that are both using RAND_bytes() and doing fork() operations. This only affects applications explicitly calling RAND_bytes() after fork() and does not affect any internal TLS operations. Although RAND_bytes() documentation in OpenSSL calls out not being safe for use with fork() without first calling RAND_poll(), an additional code change was also made in wolfSSL to make RAND_bytes() behave similar to OpenSSL after a fork() call without calling RAND_poll(). Now the Hash-DRBG used gets reseeded after detecting running in a new process. If making use of RAND_bytes() and calling fork() we recommend updating to the latest version of wolfSSL. Thanks to Per Allansson from Appgate for the report."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "cvssV4_0": {
            "Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
            "attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "baseScore": 7,
            "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "subConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
            "subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
            "userInteraction": "PASSIVE",
            "valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N",
            "version": "4.0",
            "vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
            "vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
            "vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
          },
          "format": "CVSS",
          "scenarios": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "GENERAL"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-200",
              "description": "CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2025-07-18T22:57:53.350Z",
        "orgId": "50d2cd11-d01a-48ed-9441-5bfce9d63b27",
        "shortName": "wolfSSL"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/blob/master/ChangeLog.md#wolfssl-release-582-july-17-2025"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "EXTERNAL"
      },
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "50d2cd11-d01a-48ed-9441-5bfce9d63b27",
    "assignerShortName": "wolfSSL",
    "cveId": "CVE-2025-7394",
    "datePublished": "2025-07-18T22:34:23.849Z",
    "dateReserved": "2025-07-09T16:38:33.567Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2025-07-21T15:00:21.780Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.1",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2025-7394\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"facts@wolfssl.com\",\"published\":\"2025-07-18T23:15:23.470\",\"lastModified\":\"2025-07-22T13:06:07.260\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Awaiting Analysis\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"In the OpenSSL compatibility layer implementation, the function RAND_poll() was not behaving as expected and leading to the potential for predictable values returned from RAND_bytes() after fork() is called. This can lead to weak or predictable random numbers generated in applications that are both using RAND_bytes() and doing fork() operations. This only affects applications explicitly calling RAND_bytes() after fork() and does not affect any internal TLS operations. Although RAND_bytes() documentation in OpenSSL calls out not being safe for use with fork() without first calling RAND_poll(), an additional code change was also made in wolfSSL to make RAND_bytes() behave similar to OpenSSL after a fork() call without calling RAND_poll(). Now the Hash-DRBG used gets reseeded after detecting running in a new process. If making use of RAND_bytes() and calling fork() we recommend updating to the latest version of wolfSSL. Thanks to Per Allansson from Appgate for the report.\"},{\"lang\":\"es\",\"value\":\"En la implementaci\u00f3n de la capa de compatibilidad de OpenSSL, la funci\u00f3n RAND_poll() no se comportaba como se esperaba, lo que pod\u00eda generar valores predecibles de RAND_bytes() tras llamar a fork(). Esto puede generar n\u00fameros aleatorios d\u00e9biles o predecibles en aplicaciones que usan RAND_bytes() y realizan operaciones fork(). Esto solo afecta a las aplicaciones que llaman expl\u00edcitamente a RAND_bytes() despu\u00e9s de fork() y no afecta a las operaciones internas de TLS. Aunque la documentaci\u00f3n de RAND_bytes() en OpenSSL indica que no es seguro usarla con fork() sin llamar primero a RAND_poll(), tambi\u00e9n se realiz\u00f3 un cambio de c\u00f3digo adicional en wolfSSL para que RAND_bytes() se comporte de forma similar a OpenSSL tras una llamada a fork() sin llamar a RAND_poll(). Ahora, el Hash-DRBG utilizado se resembraliza tras detectar la ejecuci\u00f3n en un nuevo proceso. Si se utiliza RAND_bytes() y se llama a fork(), se recomienda actualizar a la \u00faltima versi\u00f3n de wolfSSL. Gracias a Per Allansson de Appgate por el informe.\"}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV40\":[{\"source\":\"facts@wolfssl.com\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"4.0\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X\",\"baseScore\":7.0,\"baseSeverity\":\"HIGH\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"HIGH\",\"attackRequirements\":\"PRESENT\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"NONE\",\"userInteraction\":\"PASSIVE\",\"vulnConfidentialityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"vulnIntegrityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"vulnAvailabilityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"subConfidentialityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"subIntegrityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"subAvailabilityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"exploitMaturity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"confidentialityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"integrityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"availabilityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackVector\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackComplexity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackRequirements\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedPrivilegesRequired\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedUserInteraction\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubIntegrityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Safety\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Automatable\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Recovery\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"valueDensity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"vulnerabilityResponseEffort\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"providerUrgency\":\"NOT_DEFINED\"}}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"facts@wolfssl.com\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-200\"}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/blob/master/ChangeLog.md#wolfssl-release-582-july-17-2025\",\"source\":\"facts@wolfssl.com\"}]}}",
    "vulnrichment": {
      "containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2025-7394\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"no\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"partial\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2025-07-21T15:00:11.053980Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2025-07-21T15:00:14.044Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"source\": {\"discovery\": \"EXTERNAL\"}, \"credits\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"finder\", \"value\": \"Per Allansson\"}], \"metrics\": [{\"format\": \"CVSS\", \"cvssV4_0\": {\"Safety\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"version\": \"4.0\", \"Recovery\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"baseScore\": 7, \"Automatable\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"HIGH\", \"valueDensity\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N\", \"providerUrgency\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"userInteraction\": \"PASSIVE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"HIGH\", \"attackRequirements\": \"PRESENT\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"subIntegrityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnIntegrityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"subAvailabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnAvailabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"subConfidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"vulnConfidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"vulnerabilityResponseEffort\": \"NOT_DEFINED\"}, \"scenarios\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"GENERAL\"}]}], \"affected\": [{\"repo\": \"https://github.com/wolfssl/wolfssl\", \"vendor\": \"wolfSSL\", \"product\": \"wolfSSL\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.15.0\", \"versionType\": \"git\", \"lessThanOrEqual\": \"5.8.0\"}], \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\"}], \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/blob/master/ChangeLog.md#wolfssl-release-582-july-17-2025\"}], \"x_generator\": {\"engine\": \"Vulnogram 0.2.0\"}, \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"In the OpenSSL compatibility layer implementation, the function RAND_poll() was not behaving as expected and leading to the potential for predictable values returned from RAND_bytes() after fork() is called. This can lead to weak or predictable random numbers generated in applications that are both using RAND_bytes() and doing fork() operations. This only affects applications explicitly calling RAND_bytes() after fork() and does not affect any internal TLS operations. Although RAND_bytes() documentation in OpenSSL calls out not being safe for use with fork() without first calling RAND_poll(), an additional code change was also made in wolfSSL to make RAND_bytes() behave similar to OpenSSL after a fork() call without calling RAND_poll(). Now the Hash-DRBG used gets reseeded after detecting running in a new process. If making use of RAND_bytes() and calling fork() we recommend updating to the latest version of wolfSSL. Thanks to Per Allansson from Appgate for the report.\", \"supportingMedia\": [{\"type\": \"text/html\", \"value\": \"\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: transparent;\\\"\u003eIn the OpenSSL compatibility layer implementation, the function RAND_poll() was not behaving as expected and leading to the potential for predictable values returned from RAND_bytes() after fork() is called. This can lead to weak or predictable random numbers generated in applications that are both using RAND_bytes() and doing fork() operations. This only affects applications explicitly calling RAND_bytes() after fork() and does not affect any internal TLS operations. Although RAND_bytes() documentation in OpenSSL calls out not being safe for use with fork() without first calling RAND_poll(), an additional code change was also made in wolfSSL to make RAND_bytes() behave similar to OpenSSL after a fork() call without calling RAND_poll(). Now the Hash-DRBG used gets reseeded after detecting running in a new process. If making use of RAND_bytes() and calling fork() we recommend updating to the latest version of wolfSSL. Thanks to Per Allansson from Appgate for the report.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\", \"base64\": false}]}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-200\", \"description\": \"CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"50d2cd11-d01a-48ed-9441-5bfce9d63b27\", \"shortName\": \"wolfSSL\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2025-07-18T22:57:53.350Z\"}}}",
      "cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2025-7394\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2025-07-21T15:00:21.780Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2025-07-09T16:38:33.567Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"50d2cd11-d01a-48ed-9441-5bfce9d63b27\", \"datePublished\": \"2025-07-18T22:34:23.849Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"wolfSSL\"}",
      "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
      "dataVersion": "5.1"
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.