CVE-2025-7394 (GCVE-0-2025-7394)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-07-18 22:34 – Updated: 2025-07-21 15:00
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
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.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2025-07-21 15:00 UTC
CWE
- CWE-200 - Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
Assigner
References
1 reference
Impacted products
{
"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": {
"epss": {
"cve": "CVE-2025-7394",
"date": "2026-09-19",
"epss": "0.00404",
"percentile": "0.3446"
},
"microsoft_vex": {
"current_release_date": "2026-02-18T02:19:45.000Z",
"cve": "CVE-2025-7394",
"id": "msrc_CVE-2025-7394",
"initial_release_date": "2025-07-02T00:00:00.000Z",
"product_status:fixed": "2",
"product_status:known_affected": "2",
"source": "Microsoft CSAF VEX",
"status": "final",
"title": "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.",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/csaf/vex/2025/msrc_cve-2025-7394.json",
"version": "2"
},
"nvd": {
"cve": {
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"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"
}
]
}
],
"source": "facts@wolfssl.com"
}
],
"configurations": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:wolfssl:wolfssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "18A12E06-A9AD-488D-B3A6-8F6DBE0DA749",
"versionEndIncluding": "5.8.0",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.15.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"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."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2025-7394",
"lastModified": "2026-06-17T10:04:50.223",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 9.8,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
"impactScore": 5.9,
"source": "nvd@nist.gov",
"type": "Primary"
}
],
"cvssMetricV40": [
{
"cvssData": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "HIGH",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"baseScore": 7.0,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"integrityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackComplexity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackRequirements": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackVector": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedPrivilegesRequired": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedUserInteraction": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"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/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",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"source": "facts@wolfssl.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2025-7394",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "none"
},
{
"automatable": "no"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-07-21T15:00:11.053980Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2025-07-18T23:15:23.470",
"references": [
{
"source": "facts@wolfssl.com",
"tags": [
"Release Notes"
],
"url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/blob/master/ChangeLog.md#wolfssl-release-582-july-17-2025"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "facts@wolfssl.com",
"vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-200"
}
],
"source": "facts@wolfssl.com",
"type": "Secondary"
},
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-338"
}
],
"source": "nvd@nist.gov",
"type": "Primary"
}
]
}
},
"redhat_vex": {
"current_release_date": "2025-07-20T23:08:13+00:00",
"cve": "CVE-2025-7394",
"id": "CVE-2025-7394",
"initial_release_date": "2025-01-01T00:00:00+00:00",
"product_status:known_not_affected": "1",
"source": "Red Hat CSAF VEX",
"status": "final",
"title": "CVE-2025-7394",
"url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2025/cve-2025-7394.json",
"version": "3"
},
"suse_vex": {
"aggregate_severity": "moderate",
"current_release_date": "2026-08-29T01:31:56Z",
"cve": "CVE-2025-7394",
"id": "CVE-2025-7394",
"initial_release_date": "2025-07-22T23:27:52Z",
"product_status:known_not_affected": "424",
"source": "SUSE CSAF VEX",
"status": "interim",
"title": "SUSE CVE CVE-2025-7394",
"url": "https://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/security/csaf-vex/cve-2025-7394.json",
"version": "10"
},
"vulnrichment": {
"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": "2025-07-21T15:00:14.044Z",
"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"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Loading…
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.
Loading…