CWE · MITRE source
CWE-335Incorrect Usage of Seeds in Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG)
The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) but does not correctly manage seeds.
PRNGs are deterministic and, while their output appears random, they cannot actually create entropy. They rely on cryptographically secure and unique seeds for entropy so proper seeding is critical to the secure operation of the PRNG. Management of seeds could be broken down into two main areas: PRNGs require a seed as input to generate a stream of numbers that are functionally indistinguishable from random numbers. While the output is, in many cases, sufficient for cryptographic uses, the output of any PRNG is directly determined by the seed provided as input. If the seed can be ascertained by a third party, the entire output of the PRNG can be made known to them. As such, the seed should be kept secret and should ideally not be able to be guessed. For example, the current time may be a poor seed. Knowing the approximate time the PRNG was seeded greatly reduces the possible key space. Seeds do not necessarily need to be unique, but reusing seeds may open up attacks if the seed is discovered.
Last updated: 22 August 2026 14:14 UTC
Cumulative inbound coverage
How completely the frameworks we cross-walk collectively cover this — the verdict is the strongest single mapping (overlapping partials are not summed); breadth shows the corroboration behind it.
Collective: partial · 2 mapping(s) from 2 framework(s): STIG oracle linux 8 1 (partial) · STIG rhel 8 1 (partial)
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
This weakness contributes to A04:2025 Cryptographic Failures.
Control responseHuman-reviewed
Answering this weakness across the control lifecycle, from our framework cross-walks.
—
- 2 hardening rules · 2 OS baselines
V7.2.3V11.5.1
NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (0)AI-assisted
| Control | Title | Family | Why it addresses this CWE |
|---|---|---|---|
| No NIST controls proposed yet. | |||
Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority
| CVE | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2017-11519 UPD | 7.8 | 9.8 | 0.0305 | 2017-07-21 |
CVE-2019-11495 UPD | 7.7 | 9.8 | 0.0214 | 2019-09-10 |
CVE-2019-10908 UPD | 7.6 | 9.8 | 0.0161 | 2019-04-07 |
CVE-2012-1577 UPD | 7.6 | 9.8 | 0.0155 | 2019-12-10 |
CVE-2024-36048 UPD | 7.5 | 9.8 | 0.0097 | 2024-05-18 |
CVE-2023-4472 UPD | 7.4 | 9.8 | 0.0062 | 2024-02-01 |
CVE-2018-12520 UPD | 7.0 | 8.1 | 0.1067 | 2018-07-05 |
CVE-2018-14647 UPD | 6.8 | 7.5 | 0.1091 | 2018-09-25 |
CVE-2024-27632 UPD | 6.8 | 8.8 | 0.0127 | 2024-04-08 |
CVE-2021-41117 UPD | 6.7 | 8.7 | 0.0309 | 2021-10-11 |
CVE-2016-10180 UPD | 6.4 | 7.5 | 0.0441 | 2017-01-30 |
CVE-2021-27211 UPD | 6.4 | 7.5 | 0.0325 | 2021-02-15 |
CVE-2016-3735 UPD | 6.4 | 8.1 | 0.0136 | 2022-01-28 |
CVE-2022-26852 UPD | 6.4 | 8.1 | 0.0122 | 2022-04-08 |
CVE-2019-25061 UPD | 6.2 | 7.5 | 0.0187 | 2022-05-18 |
CVE-2024-1579 UPD | 6.2 | 8.1 | 0.0052 | 2024-04-29 |
CVE-2024-7558 UPD | 6.2 | 8.7 | 0.0050 | 2024-10-02 |
CVE-2017-5214 UPD | 6.1 | 7.5 | 0.0120 | 2017-05-17 |
CVE-2018-1426 UPD | 6.1 | 7.4 | 0.0246 | 2018-03-22 |
CVE-2020-13784 UPD | 6.1 | 7.5 | 0.0130 | 2020-06-03 |
CVE-2020-7010 UPD | 6.1 | 7.5 | 0.0144 | 2020-06-03 |
CVE-2022-31034 UPD | 6.1 | 8.3 | 0.0091 | 2022-06-27 |
CVE-2020-28597 UPD | 6.0 | 7.5 | 0.0103 | 2021-03-03 |
CVE-2022-39218 UPD | 6.0 | 7.5 | 0.0080 | 2022-09-20 |
CVE-2025-24783 UPD | 6.0 | 7.5 | 0.0079 | 2025-01-27 |