Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

sys_rand_get() silently returns an unwritten buffer when the entropy device is not ready

MonitorNot in CISA KEVCVE-2026-87043CWE-330

Not confirmed exploited. No WAF vendor names it yet.

Edge rules
0/9
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
4.8
EPSS
—
Posts, 14d
12026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts2026-11-04: 1 posts
Published
2026-11-04

What it is

The entropy-device random number generator in subsys/random/random_entropy_device.c returned early with -ENODEV from rand_get() as soon as device_is_ready() failed, before reaching the non-cryptographic system-timer fallback further down the same function. Because z_impl_sys_rand_get() returns void and discards that error — and the public sys_rand_get() syscall is itself declared void, so it cannot report failure — the caller's output buffer was left untouched and its previous contents were handed back as random data. The thin wrappers make this a plain uninitialized read: sys_rand32_get() declares uint32_t ret;, calls sys_rand_get(&ret, sizeof(ret)) and returns ret. The "not ready" state is a normal runtime condition rather than a fault. Entropy drivers initialise at PRE_KERNEL_1 with CONFIG_ENTROPY_INIT_PRIORITY (default 50), so any earlier initialiser — kernel objects run at priority 30 — observes an unready device; the sibling generator subsys/random/random_xoshiro128.c and z_early_rand_get() in kernel/init.c both already carried an explicit timer fallback for exactly this case. The state is also permanent for the boot when an entropy driver's init hook fails, which several in-tree drivers can do on real hardware (entropy_stm32 on an RNG clock configuration error, entropy_psa_crypto when psa_crypto_init() fails, entropy_nrf_cracen, entropy_esp32, entropy_virtio). When this occurs, every non-cryptographic random value in the system is either a constant or stale memory. coap_next_token() in subsys/net/lib/coap/coap.c fills a static buffer, so every CoAP token becomes the same .bss constant; tcp_init_isn() in subsys/net/ip/tcp.c returns an uninitialized stack word as the TCP initial sequence number; DHCPv4/DHCPv6 transaction IDs, WebSocket masking keys and RTP SSRCs are similarly degraded, and arch/arm64/core/pac.c derives per-thread Pointer Authentication keys from the same source. Where the bytes are transmitted directly — SSH packet padding, the netmidi2 session nonce, a DTLS connection ID on builds without CONFIG_CSPRNG_ENABLED — stale caller stack or heap contents are disclosed on the wire. The fix initialises ret to -ENODEV and only calls entropy_get_entropy() when the device is ready, so the not-ready case now falls through to the timer fallback and the buffer is always written. The cryptographically secure path is unchanged: sys_csrand_get() still propagates the error to the caller and never silently degrades. An attacker cannot induce the unready state, but can observe and exploit the resulting non-random values remotely on an affected device.

Read the full descriptionShow less
From the CVE record · CVE-2026-87043 ↗
MonitorLast checked 2026-11-04

The risk

It is reachable over the network without credentials or any user interaction (CVSS 4.8). No edge WAF vendor names it in a changelog, so default managed rules may or may not catch it. Exploitation in the wild is not established by CISA KEV.

Who is affected

Teams running zephyrproject zephyr (4.4.0 to before 4.5.0). Prioritise internet-facing instances.

Next steps

  1. Apply the vendor's fix; the advisory lists the affected and fixed versions. Fix commit ↗
  2. Do not rely on WAF defaults: no edge vendor names this CVE. Restrict access to the vulnerable component or add a custom rule until it is patched. Edge coverage
  3. Check which WAF sits in front of your site and whether it covers this CVE. Check your domain

Attack traffic on Cloudflare

Cloudflare Radar
  • Rules for named CVEs5.6% of mitigated layer 7 attacks, 7 days2026-10-07: 1.8%2026-10-08: 3%2026-10-09: 6.3%2026-10-10: 1.9%2026-10-11: 0.8%2026-10-12: 0.6%2026-10-13: 0.6%2026-10-14: 4.2%2026-10-15: 2.3%2026-10-16: 1.3%2026-10-17: 1.6%2026-10-18: 1.1%2026-10-19: 3.2%2026-10-20: 4.7%2026-10-21: 5.7%2026-10-22: 5.5%2026-10-23: 9.8%2026-10-24: 7%2026-10-25: 5%2026-10-26: 7.3%2026-10-27: 8.1%2026-10-28: 10.1%2026-10-29: 0.9%2026-10-30: 4.1%2026-10-31: 7.5%2026-11-01: 8.7%2026-11-02: 2.4%2026-11-03: 7.5%2026-11-04: 1.1%

Radar groups Cloudflare's WAF managed rules by category; it does not publish counts per CVE. These shares show how much attack traffic targets this kind of flaw across Cloudflare's network (28-day trend). They are not compromised systems, and seeing few attempts on Cloudflare does not prove an absence elsewhere. Radar data as of 2026-11-04. Radar ↗

Check your exposure with an agent

Read-only

Copy this into an agent with access to your infrastructure. It asks for an evidence-based, read-only assessment: affected systems, exposure, compensating controls and what is still unknown. It does not scan or change anything by itself.

Prompt12 lines
Assess whether the infrastructure available to you is affected by CVE-2026-87043 (sys_rand_get() silently returns an unwritten buffer when the entropy device is not ready). Perform a read-only assessment within your authorized access. Do not send exploit traffic, scan third-party systems, change configuration or restart services.

1. Verify the CVE record at https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-87043 and the vendor advisories (https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/76eb10b5c3e93de5218cc9f1aa313ece3eb5a6e6). Establish affected and fixed versions, including vendor backports. The record lists: zephyrproject zephyr: affected 4.4.0 to before 4.5.0. Cite sources and retrieval dates; flag anything you cannot verify.
2. Inventory deployments of zephyrproject zephyr: asset, environment, owner where known, installed version or build, and how you confirmed it (package metadata, a version endpoint, image tags). An image tag alone does not prove the running version.
3. Identify which deployments are reachable from the internet or untrusted networks, and through which paths (direct origin, load balancer, CDN or WAF).
4. Assess compensating controls separately from patch status. Current edge WAF coverage for this CVE: no edge WAF vendor names it. Live data: https://cve.vigilbase.com/api/v1/cves/CVE-2026-87043. Check whether the rule is enabled and in block mode on each path, and whether any path bypasses the WAF. A WAF rule is not a patch.
5. Check logs on exposed instances for requests matching the public exploit, if your access allows.

Return a short summary and a table: asset | version/build | assessment (affected, fixed, not applicable, unknown) | exposure | compensating control | evidence | next action. List what you could not assess and the access needed to resolve it. Do not infer absence of compromise from patch status or a lack of alerts.

Remediation guidance: Apply the vendor's fix; the advisory lists the affected and fixed versions. Do not rely on WAF defaults: no edge vendor names this CVE. Restrict access to the vulnerable component or add a custom rule until it is patched.
More: https://cve.vigilbase.com/cve/CVE-2026-87043

Sources

Cited
CVE record

CVSS 3.1 4.8 (medium). Weakness: CWE-330.

Vendor advisory

Fixes and mitigations the CVE record links to. Check affected builds against the vendor, including backports.

Exploit evidence

No public exploit code found in Exploit-DB, Metasploit, nuclei-templates or GitHub. That does not mean none exists.

CISA KEV

Not in the KEV catalog (catalog 2026.11.03, checked 2026-11-04). Absence from KEV is not evidence that it cannot be exploited.

WAF vendor statements

No edge vendor changelog names it.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2026-87043: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
Medium · 4.8 / 10

Exploitable over the network under specific conditions, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to low impact on confidentiality and integrity.

Over the internetNo login neededNo user actionHard to pull off
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityThe attack only works when conditions outside the attacker's control line up.
    High
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.
    Unchanged
  • Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read some data, but has no control over what they get.
    Low
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change some data, but with limited control or limited effect.
    Low
  • Availability impactThe component keeps working normally.
    None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Public exploits

None found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

  1. 2026-11-04
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2026-11-04

Social

2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts2026-11-04: 1 posts

Top posts

  • CVE Alerts @cve.skyfleet.blue·

    CVE-2026-87043 - sys_rand_get() silently returns an unwritten buffer when the entropy device is not ready CVE ID : CVE-2026-87043 Published : Nov. 4, 2026, 6:17 a.m. | 47 minutes ago Description : The entropy-device random number generator in subsys/random/random_entropy...

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The feed holds only the latest 25 changes, so history builds up from the day we started reading it.

VercelVercel WAF (platform rules)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Vercel posts about the vulnerabilities it ships platform-wide rules for, on by default for every project, with no rule ids. When a post limits its claim to some advisories, we count only the ones it names. Projects not on Vercel get nothing from these rules.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.