VulnerabilityPublished 31 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-15618: MOCK Business::OnlinePayment::StoredTransaction · Use of Cryptographically Weak Pseudo-Random Number Generator

Affects MOCK Business::OnlinePayment::StoredTransactionSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

Contested

Critical score, yet low EPSS after six months

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 31 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 30 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
MOCKBusiness::OnlinePayment::StoredTransaction	Affected <=0.01	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should immediately cease using Business::OnlinePayment::StoredTransaction versions up to 0.01 for encrypting sensitive data. Developers should update the module to use a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator (CSPRNG), such as those provided by Perl's Crypt::PRNG or the operating system's secure random sources (e.g., /dev/urandom or Crypt::Random). The key derivation process should employ modern, secure algorithms like HKDF or PBKDF2 with appropriate salts and iteration counts instead of MD5 hashing. Additionally, organizations should audit stored encrypted data and consider re-encrypting with securely generated keys. Implementing comprehensive logging and monitoring for unusual access patterns to payment data can help detect exploitation attempts. Finally, educating developers on secure cryptographic practices and regularly reviewing third-party dependencies for vulnerabilities is essential to prevent similar issues.

Description

Business::OnlinePayment::StoredTransaction versions through 0.01 for Perl uses an insecure secret key. Business::OnlinePayment::StoredTransaction generates a secret key by using a MD5 hash of a single call to the built-in rand function, which is unsuitable for cryptographic use. This key is intended for encrypting credit card transaction data.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential exposure of sensitive credit card transaction data encrypted using weakly generated secret keys. Attackers who can predict or reproduce the secret key can decrypt stored payment information, leading to data breaches involving financial data, identity theft, and fraud. Organizations relying on this Perl module for online payment processing risk losing customer trust, facing regulatory penalties for inadequate data protection, and incurring financial losses from fraud and remediation costs. The vulnerability undermines the confidentiality and integrity of payment data but does not directly affect system availability. Since the weakness is in the cryptographic key generation, exploitation does not require user interaction or authentication, increasing the risk of automated attacks. The scope is limited to systems using the affected module version, but given the widespread use of Perl in legacy and some modern payment systems, the affected population could be significant. The absence of known exploits suggests that attackers may need some effort to develop reliable attacks, but the fundamental cryptographic flaw is severe.

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).
CWE-693Protection Mechanism Failure (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Encryption Brute Forcing (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 31 Mar 2026, 10:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-338, CWE-693

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats