CVE-2024-25389
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedRT-Thread through 5.0.2 generates random numbers with a weak algorithm of "seed = 214013L * seed + 2531011L; return (seed >> 16) & 0x7FFF;" in calc_random in drivers/misc/rt_random.c.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceRT-Thread through 5.0.2 uses a weak Linear Congruential Generator (LCG) for random number generation in calc_random (drivers/misc/rt_random.c). The algorithm uses predictable math (seed = 214013L * seed + 2531011L) and only returns 15 bits, making generated numbers easily predictable by attackers who can observe outputs.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 5.0.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify RT-Thread installationCheck your project or system for the presence of RT-Thread by looking for its directory structure, header files (typically under include/rtthread.h), or build artifacts that reference RT-Thread componentsAffected if RT-Thread is present in your environment
-
Determine RT-Thread versionLocate the version file or header (often found as version.h or in the root directory of RT-Thread) and check the defined version number or tagAffected if The version is 5.0.2 or lower, or if you cannot determine a version and are using RT-Thread
-
Verify vulnerable file existsSearch for the file drivers/misc/rt_random.c in your RT-Thread source tree and confirm its presenceAffected if The file drivers/misc/rt_random.c exists in your codebase
-
Inspect calc_random implementationOpen drivers/misc/rt_random.c and locate the calc_random function; verify it uses the LCG formula (seed = 214013L * seed + 2531011L) and returns a 15-bit valueAffected if The calc_random function contains the weak LCG algorithm with 15-bit output as described
-
Identify usage of calc_randomSearch your codebase for calls to calc_random or rt_random function, particularly in security-sensitive contexts such as key generation, session tokens, cryptographic operations, or authentication mechanismsAffected if calc_random is called from code that handles passwords, tokens, keys, or other security-critical operations
You are affected if you use RT-Thread version 5.0.2 or lower and your application relies on calc_random for any security-sensitive random number generation.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataReplace the weak RNG in calc_random with a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator (CSPRNG) such as a hardware RNG, ChaCha20, or Mersenne Twister, and audit all code paths using this function for security-sensitive operations.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-25389 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-25389 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data