VulnerabilityPublished 27 Feb 2026Updated 3 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-3255: TOKUHIROM HTTP::Session2 · Generation of Predictable Numbers or Identifiers

Affects TOKUHIROM HTTP::Session2Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 1.12 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.12

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

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

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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Feb 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

Upgrade HTTP::Session2 and HTTP-Session2 to 1.12.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
TOKUHIROMHTTP::Session2	Affected <1.12	Fixed in 1.12
GitHubHTTP-Session2`pkg:github/HTTP-Session2`Other threats	Affected <1.12	Fixed in 1.12

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should upgrade HTTP::Session2 to version 1.12 or later, ensuring that the module uses cryptographically secure random number generators without fallback to insecure methods. For environments where /dev/urandom is unavailable (e.g., Windows), verify that the module does not revert to the weak rand() based method or consider patching the module to enforce secure randomness sources. Additionally, implement defense-in-depth by enforcing short session lifetimes, binding sessions to client IP addresses or user agents where feasible, and monitoring for anomalous session activity. Web applications should also consider integrating alternative session management libraries that guarantee cryptographically secure session ID generation. Regularly audit and test session management mechanisms for randomness quality and resistance to prediction attacks. Finally, ensure HTTP headers do not leak epoch time or other predictable values that could aid attackers in guessing session IDs.

Description

HTTP::Session2 versions before 1.12 for Perl for Perl may generate weak session ids using the rand() function. The HTTP::Session2 session id generator returns a SHA-1 hash seeded with the built-in rand function, the epoch time, and the PID. The PID will come from a small set of numbers, and the epoch time may be guessed, if it is not leaked from the HTTP Date header. The built-in rand() function is unsuitable for cryptographic usage. HTTP::Session2 after version 1.02 will attempt to use the /dev/urandom device to generate a session id, but if the device is unavailable (for example, under Windows), then it will revert to the insecure method described above.

Impact

This vulnerability can have significant impacts on organizations that use HTTP::Session2 for session management in web applications. Predictable session IDs allow attackers to hijack user sessions without authentication, potentially gaining unauthorized access to sensitive information or user accounts. This compromises confidentiality and can disrupt availability if attackers manipulate sessions or cause denial of service by invalidating sessions. The ease of exploitation is moderate since attackers need to guess or infer epoch time and PID, but no authentication or user interaction is required, increasing risk. Organizations relying on vulnerable versions, especially on Windows systems where fallback to insecure randomness occurs, face higher exposure. The impact is particularly critical for applications handling sensitive data, financial transactions, or personal information. While no known exploits are reported, the vulnerability presents a clear attack vector for session hijacking and impersonation, undermining trust and security of web services.

CWE-340Generation of Predictable Numbers or Identifiers (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a scheme that generates numbers or identifiers that are more predictable than required.
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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 6 Mar 2026, 21:20 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-340, CWE-338

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats