Логотип exploitDog
Консоль
Логотип exploitDog

exploitDog

debian логотип

CVE-2025-7394

Опубликовано: 18 июл. 2025
Источник: debian
EPSS Низкий

Описание

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.

Пакеты

ПакетСтатусВерсия исправленияРелизТип
wolfsslfixed5.7.2-0.3experimentalpackage
wolfsslunfixedpackage

Примечания

  • https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/8849

  • Fixed by: https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/commit/0c12337194ee6dd082f082f0ccaed27fc4ee44f5 (v5.8.2-stable)

  • https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/8867

  • Fixed by (merge commit): https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/commit/6571f42cb9d73589510d139a09095209a760df5b (v5.8.2-stable)

  • https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/8898

  • Fixed by (merge commit): https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/commit/978a29da0b76eb868748967f4cb74421dc2382a2 (v5.8.2-stable)

  • https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/blob/master/ChangeLog.md#wolfssl-release-582-july-17-2025

EPSS

Процентиль: 17%
0.00055
Низкий

Связанные уязвимости

ubuntu
около 1 месяца назад

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.

nvd
около 1 месяца назад

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.

github
около 1 месяца назад

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.

EPSS

Процентиль: 17%
0.00055
Низкий