CVE-2025-0577VulnerabilityPublished 18 Feb 2026Updated 25 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-0577: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 · Insufficient Entropy

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 18 Feb 2026
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 2026-10-25.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 10	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 7	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 8	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 9	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-0577, organizations should: 1) Apply official patches or updates from Fedora or glibc maintainers as soon as they become available to ensure the entropy sources are properly reseeded after fork. 2) Avoid or minimize the use of fork followed immediately by concurrent calls to getrandom or arc4random functions until patched. 3) Where possible, redesign applications to use alternative randomness sources or libraries that are not affected by this issue. 4) Implement runtime monitoring to detect unusual patterns in random number generation or cryptographic failures that might indicate exploitation attempts. 5) For critical systems, consider isolating or containerizing processes to reduce the risk of entropy state sharing after fork. 6) Educate developers and system administrators about the risks of entropy reuse and the importance of secure random number generation in multi-process environments. 7) Review cryptographic key generation and session management practices to ensure they can withstand potential entropy weaknesses. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific concurrency and fork-related nature of the vulnerability.

Description

An insufficient entropy vulnerability was found in glibc. The getrandom and arc4random family of functions may return predictable randomness if these functions are called again after the fork, which happens concurrently with a call to any of these functions.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-0577 is on the confidentiality and integrity of cryptographic operations that depend on the randomness provided by glibc's getrandom and arc4random functions. Predictable random values can lead to weakened cryptographic keys, session tokens, or nonces, increasing the risk of cryptographic attacks such as key recovery, session hijacking, or replay attacks. This can compromise sensitive data, authentication mechanisms, and secure communications. Since the vulnerability does not affect availability, denial of service is not a concern. However, the scope is significant because glibc is a fundamental library used by most Linux distributions and many applications. Systems that fork processes and then call these random functions concurrently are particularly vulnerable. The medium CVSS score reflects that exploitation is not trivial due to the high attack complexity and the need for specific conditions (fork plus concurrent calls), but the potential damage to confidentiality and integrity is meaningful. Organizations running affected Fedora versions or derivatives should consider the risk to their cryptographic operations and data protection.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 12:05 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats