VulnerabilityPublished 6 Sep 2024Updated 30 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-45751: tgt · PRNG

Affects tgtSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium : upgrade to 1.0.93 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 45% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.0.93

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Sep 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade fujita/tgt to 1.0.93.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubfujita/tgt`pkg:github/fujita/tgt`Other threats	Affected <1.0.93	Fixed in 1.0.93

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-45751, organizations should upgrade tgt to version 1.0.93 or later, where the PRNG is properly seeded to ensure unpredictable challenge sequences. If immediate upgrading is not feasible, administrators should consider implementing additional entropy sources or wrappers around tgt's challenge generation to introduce randomness, such as integrating hardware random number generators or using cryptographically secure random functions. Network-level controls restricting access to tgt services can reduce exposure. Monitoring tgt logs for repeated or suspicious challenge-response patterns may help detect exploitation attempts. Additionally, reviewing tgt configuration to enforce strict authentication and access controls can limit the impact of predictable challenges. Organizations should also track vendor advisories for patches or workarounds and apply them promptly. Finally, conducting penetration tests focusing on tgt authentication mechanisms can validate the effectiveness of mitigations.

Description

tgt (aka Linux target framework) before 1.0.93 attempts to achieve entropy by calling rand without srand. The PRNG seed is always 1, and thus the sequence of challenges is always identical.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-45751 is on the integrity of tgt's challenge-response mechanisms. Because the pseudo-random number generator is seeded with a fixed value, attackers can predict the sequence of challenges and potentially bypass authentication or authorization checks that rely on these challenges. This can lead to unauthorized access or manipulation of storage targets managed by tgt. Although confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, the integrity compromise can facilitate further attacks or unauthorized data modifications. Organizations using tgt in environments where secure storage access controls are critical—such as data centers, cloud providers, and enterprise storage systems—face increased risk of targeted attacks exploiting this vulnerability. The medium CVSS score reflects the moderate ease of exploitation combined with the significant impact on integrity. The lack of known exploits suggests the vulnerability is not yet widely weaponized, but the predictable nature of the flaw makes it an attractive target for attackers seeking to bypass tgt security.

CWE-338Use of Cryptographically Weak Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) in a security context, but the PRNG's algorithm is not cryptographically strong.
Implementation
Use functions or hardware which use a hardware-based random number generation for all crypto. This is the recommended solution. Use CyptGenRandom on Windows, or hw_rand() on Linux.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
HSTS (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V6.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V6.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 08:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-338

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats