Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-10604 is a medium-severity Use of Insufficiently Random Values (CWE-330) vulnerability in Google Fuchsia. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 13th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-12 (Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management) and SC-13 (Cryptographic Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-32906
Vulnerability Data
Vulnerabilities in the algorithms used by Fuchsia to populate network protocol header fields, specifically the TCP ISN, TCP timestamp, TCP and UDP source ports, and IPv4/IPv6 fragment ID allow for these values to be guessed under circumstances
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SC-12 requires proper cryptographic key establishment and management, which structurally mandates use of sufficient randomness for key generation.
SC-13 requires selection and implementation of approved cryptographic algorithms and methods, which inherently depend on and enforce sufficiently random values.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Cryptographic controls require use of approved, sufficiently random values for keys and nonces.
Secure SDLC processes include verification steps that can catch insufficient randomness but do not directly specify RNG requirements.
Secure coding standards explicitly prohibit use of weak or predictable random number generators.
Security testing can detect weak randomness but does not prescribe the control itself.
Secure authentication mechanisms depend on unpredictable values (nonces, salts, session tokens) to resist guessing.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.