Executive Summary
Informations | |||
---|---|---|---|
Name | CVE-2025-7394 | First vendor Publication | 2025-07-18 |
Vendor | Cve | Last vendor Modification | 2025-07-18 |
Security-Database Scoring CVSS v3
Cvss vector : N/A | |||
---|---|---|---|
Overall CVSS Score | NA | ||
Base Score | NA | Environmental Score | NA |
impact SubScore | NA | Temporal Score | NA |
Exploitabality Sub Score | NA | ||
Calculate full CVSS 3.0 Vectors scores |
Security-Database Scoring CVSS v2
Cvss vector : | |||
---|---|---|---|
Cvss Base Score | N/A | Attack Range | N/A |
Cvss Impact Score | N/A | Attack Complexity | N/A |
Cvss Expoit Score | N/A | Authentication | N/A |
Calculate full CVSS 2.0 Vectors scores |
Detail
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. |
Original Source
Url : http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2025-7394 |
Sources (Detail)
Source | Url |
---|
Alert History
Date | Informations |
---|---|
2025-07-19 05:20:35 |
|