CVE-2025-7394
This can lead to weak or predictable random numbers generated in applications that are both using RAND_bytes() and doing fork() operations.
Does this matter?
High impact if exploited, but EPSS currently rates exploitation as unlikely (0.40%). Schedule it in the normal patch cycle and watch for a rise in EPSS or a public exploit.
Description
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.
- CVSS 4.0
- 7.0 HIGHCVSS: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/M
- EPSS
- 0.40% probability · 34th percentile
- CISA KEV
- Not listed
- Weakness
- CWE-200, CWE-338
- Affected
- wolfssl/wolfssl
- Source
- facts@wolfssl.com
References
Source: NVD record, EPSS from FIRST.org, KEV from CISA. Refreshed daily.