VulnerabilityPublished 15 Apr 2026Updated 1 May 2026

CVE-2026-5088: JDEGUEST Apache::API::Password · Use of Cryptographically Weak Pseudo-Random Number Generator

Affects JDEGUEST Apache::API::PasswordSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% 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:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 15 Apr 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
JDEGUESTApache::API::Password	Affected <=0.5.2	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Users should ensure that the Crypt::URandom or Bytes::Random::Secure Perl modules are installed and available in their environment to avoid fallback to the insecure rand function. Monitor the vendor advisory for updates or official fixes.

Description

Apache::API::Password versions through 0.5.2 for Perl can generate insecure random values for salts. The _make_salt and _make_salt_bcrypt methods will attept to load Crypt::URandom and then Bytes::Random::Secure to generate random bytes for the salt. If those modules are unavailable, it will simply return 16 bytes generated with Perl's built-in rand function. The rand function is unsuitable for cryptographic use. These salts are used for password hashing.

Impact

The use of a weak pseudo-random number generator for salt generation can lead to predictable salts, which may facilitate precomputation or rainbow table attacks against password hashes. This reduces the confidentiality of user credentials by weakening the effectiveness of the password hashing mechanism. The CVSS score of 7.5 (high) reflects the network attack vector with no privileges or user interaction required and a high impact on confidentiality.

Summary

Apache::API::Password versions up to 0.5.2 for Perl attempt to generate salts for password hashing using Crypt::URandom or Bytes::Random::Secure modules. If these modules are not present, the code uses Perl's built-in rand function to generate 16-byte salts. Since rand is not cryptographically secure, this results in weak salts that can undermine the strength of password hashes. This vulnerability is classified as CWE-338 (Use of Cryptographically Weak Pseudo-Random Number Generator).

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 2 May 2026, 01:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-338

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats