Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.39% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2023
CVE-2023-1732High confidence
Improper random reading in CIRCL
Cloudflare · CIRCL
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-2Q89-485C-9J2X ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
5.3MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Fix not verifiedMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Cloudflare CIRCL and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
When sampling randomness for a shared secret, the implementation of Kyber and FrodoKEM, did not check whether crypto/rand.Read() returns an error. In rare deployment cases (error thrown by the Read() function), this could lead to a predictable shared secret. The tkn20 and blindrsa components did not check whether enough randomness was returned from the user provided randomness source. Typically the user provides crypto/rand.Reader, which in the vast majority of cases will always return the right number random bytes. In the cases where it does not, or the user provides a source that does not, the blinding for blindrsa is weak and integrity of the plaintext is not ensured in tkn20.
What
When sampling randomness for a shared secret, the implementation of Kyber and FrodoKEM, did not check whether crypto/rand.Read() returns an error. In rare deployment cases (error thrown by the Read() function), this could lead to a predictable shared secret. The tkn20 and blindrsa components did not check whether enough randomness was returned from the user provided randomness source. Typically the user provides crypto/rand.Reader, which in the vast majority of cases will always return the right number random bytes. In the cases where it does not, or the user provides a source that does not, the blinding for blindrsa is weak and integrity of the plaintext is not ensured in tkn20.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
When sampling randomness for a shared secret, the implementation of Kyber and FrodoKEM, did not check whether crypto/rand.Read() returns an error. In rare deployment cases (error thrown by the Read() function), this could lead to a predictable shared secret. The tkn20 and blindrsa components did not check whether enough randomness was returned from the user provided randomness source. Typically the user provides crypto/rand.Reader, which in the vast majority of cases will always return the right number random bytes. In the cases where it does not, or the user provides a source that does not, the blinding for blindrsa is weak and integrity of the plaintext is not ensured in tkn20.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- local access → Improper Input Validation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-20 ↗
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- CIRCL: < <1.3.3
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 10 May 2023 · Last source change 27 Jan 2025, 18:32 UTC · CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2023-1452
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.