CVE-2026-61500
Is CVE-2026-61500 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Real, but low real-world risk
A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Rejetto HFS 3.0.0 through 3.2.0 derives its session-cookie signing key from the non-cryptographic Math.random() generator and discloses outputs of the same generator to unauthenticated clients during login. A remote attacker can collect a small number of login responses, reconstruct the generator's state, recover the signing key, and forge a valid administrator session cookie, leading to full administrative access and remote code execution via the server_code configuration feature.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-61500)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-61500"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-61500/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-61500"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
awaiting field verdictsCurated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.
No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
- 0
This scores high on paper (CVSS 9.8) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 1%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It is reachable over the network with no authentication and no user interaction, which is the most dangerous profile. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-338.
- CVE-2026-41858HIGH 7.5
Weak Randomness / Insecure Cryptographic Primitive (CWE-338) in Get-RandomPassword in BOSH-Ecosystem / windows-utilities-release allows a network attacker to estimate VM boot time and reconstruct a small candidate list to recover the Administrator password. The randomize_password job exists solely to lock the local Administrator account behind an unguessable password as a hardening control. Because the password is derived from a predictable, clock-seeded PRNG, a network attacker who can estimate VM boot time can reconstruct a small candidate list and recover the Administrator password, defeating the hardening control. Affected versions: - windows-utilities-release: all versions prior to v0.23.0 (inclusive); fixed in v0.23.0 or later
- CVE-2026-16615MED 6.8
A flaw was found in librest. The PKCE implementation for OAuth authorization uses the GRand function from the GLib API, a cryptographically insecure pseudo-random number generator. Because the generated "code verifier" lacks sufficient cryptographic entropy, a malicious actor can reverse-engineer the pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) seed to predict or reconstruct the code verifier string, allowing an attacker to bypass PKCE protections and successfully impersonate the client during the OAuth 2.0 authorization flow.
- CVE-2026-9323HIGH 8.1Real · low riskEPSS 0%
The urwid web display backend (urwid/display/web.py) generates web session identifiers (urwid_id) in Screen.start() by concatenating two random.randrange(10**9) calls that use Python's Mersenne Twister PRNG, which is not cryptographically secure. Each call consumes approximately 30 bits of PRNG state, and the Mersenne Twister internal state is approximately 19,937 bits, so an attacker who observes approximately 334 session IDs (for example via the X-Urwid-ID HTTP response header) can fully reconstruct the internal state and predict all past and future session IDs (Path B). The same identifier is also used as the filename of a FIFO created in the world-listable /tmp directory (for example /tmp/urwid375487765176907690.in), so any local user on the host can list /tmp to enumerate active session tokens directly (Path A). With a valid session ID, an attacker can read the victim's terminal screen via the polling endpoint, inject keystrokes into the victim's session (yielding OS-level code execution with the session owner's privileges if the session runs a shell), and inject exit sequences or flood the FIFO to terminate or crash the session. A prior Bandit S311 warning on this usage was suppressed with # noqa: S311 rather than fixed
- CVE-2026-47372CRIT 9.1Real · low riskEPSS 0%
Crypt::SaltedHash versions through 0.09 for Perl generate insecure random values for salts. These versions use the built-in rand function, which is predictable and unsuitable for cryptography.
- CVE-2026-56141CRIT 9.8Real · low riskEPSS 0%
In JetBrains Hub before 2026.1.13757, 2025.3.148033, 2025.2.148048, 2025.1.148120, 2024.3.148430, 2024.2.148429 account takeover via predictable restore codes was possible
- CVE-2026-63089CRIT 9.3Real · low riskEPSS 0%
WireGuard Easy through 15.3.0, fixed in commit 66b292b, contains a cryptographically weak one-time link token generation vulnerability that allows unauthenticated network attackers to recover WireGuard peer credentials by brute-forcing a keyspace of at most 1000 candidate tokens per client ID, as the token is computed using CRC32 over a random value constrained to 0-999. Attackers can enumerate candidate tokens against the unauthenticated /cnf/:oneTimeLink route, which lacks rate limiting and does not validate token expiration, to obtain a peer's PrivateKey and PresharedKey and impersonate that peer on the VPN network.