CVE-2025-13470VulnerabilityPublished 21 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-13470: Ribose RNP · Weak Randomness

Affects Ribose RNPSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.7 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.7High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/AU:Y/RE:H/U:Red

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Supplemental metrics

Automatable: Yes
Vulnerability Response Effort: High
Provider Urgency: Red

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability
Automatable: Yes: Attackers can reliably automate all 4 steps of the kill chain. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation (e.g., the vulnerability is “wormable”).
Vulnerability Response Effort: High: The actions required to respond to a vulnerability are significant and/or difficult, and may possibly lead to an extended, scheduled service impact. This would need to be considered for scheduling purposes including honoring any embargo on deployment of the selected response. Alternatively, response to the vulnerability in the field is not possible remotely. The only resolution to the vulnerability involves physical replacement (e.g. units deployed would have to be recalled for a depot level repair or replacement). Examples include: a highly privileged driver update, microcode or UEFI BIOS updates, or software upgrades requiring careful analysis and understanding of any potential infrastructure impact before implementation. A UEFI BIOS update that impacts Trusted Platform Module (TPM) attestation without impacting disk encryption software such as Bit locker is a good recent example. Irreparable failures such as non-bootable flash subsystems, failed disks or solid-state drives (SSD), bad memory modules, network devices, or other non-recoverable under warranty hardware, should also be scored as having a High effort.
Provider Urgency: Red: Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having the highest urgency.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Nov 2025
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
GitHubrnpgp/rnp`pkg:github/rnpgp/rnp`Other threats	Affected =0.18.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately audit their use of Ribose RNP to identify deployments of version 0.18.0. Until a patched version is released, they should avoid using RNP 0.18.0 for public-key encryption tasks and revert to a previous secure version or alternative OpenPGP implementations. If public-key encryption is essential, switching to passphrase-based encryption (SKESK packets) temporarily can mitigate exposure since it is unaffected. Organizations should monitor Ribose’s official channels for patches and apply updates promptly once available. Additionally, they should implement network-level controls to detect and block suspicious traffic that may attempt to exploit this vulnerability. Encrypting sensitive data with multiple layers or alternative cryptographic tools can provide defense in depth. Regularly reviewing cryptographic libraries and enforcing strict version control policies will help prevent similar regressions. Finally, organizations should conduct security awareness training to highlight the importance of timely patching and cryptographic hygiene.

Description

In RNP version 0.18.0 a refactoring regression causes the symmetric session key used for Public-Key Encrypted Session Key (PKESK) packets to be left uninitialized except for zeroing, resulting in it always being an all-zero byte array. Any data encrypted using public-key encryption in this release can be decrypted trivially by supplying an all-zero session key, fully compromising confidentiality. The vulnerability affects only public key encryption (PKESK packets). Passphrase-based encryption (SKESK packets) is not affected. Root cause: Vulnerable session key buffer used in PKESK packet generation. The defect was introduced in commit `7bd9a8dc356aae756b40755be76d36205b6b161a` where initialization logic inside `encrypted_build_skesk()` only randomized the key for the SKESK path and omitted it for the PKESK path.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality of sensitive communications and data protected using Ribose RNP 0.18.0 public-key encryption. Sectors such as government agencies, financial institutions, healthcare providers, and critical infrastructure operators that rely on OpenPGP encryption for secure email, document exchange, or key management could face data breaches if attackers exploit this flaw. The trivial decryptability of encrypted data means that intercepted communications or stored encrypted files can be compromised without complex cryptanalysis. This undermines trust in encrypted communications and may lead to regulatory non-compliance under GDPR and other data protection laws, resulting in legal and financial repercussions. Additionally, espionage or cybercrime groups could leverage this vulnerability to gain access to confidential information. The lack of required authentication or user interaction increases the attack surface, making remote exploitation feasible. Although no exploits are currently known in the wild, the vulnerability’s simplicity and severity necessitate urgent attention to prevent potential incidents.

CWE-330Use of Insufficiently Random Values (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses insufficiently random numbers or values in a security context that depends on unpredictable numbers.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Use a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and select well-tested implementations with adequate length seeds.
Implementation
Consider a PRNG that re-seeds itself as needed from high quality pseudo-random output sources, such as hardware devices.
Architecture and Design · Requirements · Libraries or Frameworks
Use products or modules that conform to FIPS 140-2 to avoid obvious entropy problems. Consult FIPS 140-2 Annex C ("Approved Random Number Generators").
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Forgot Password (opens in a new tab)
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)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.6.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.7.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Signature Spoofing by Key Recreation (opens in a new tab)
Session Credential Falsification through Prediction (opens in a new tab)
Brute Force (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 21 Nov 2025, 17:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-330

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats