Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
Cryptocat versions before 2.0.22 used weak randomness through strophe.js Math.random(). For an encrypted messaging tool, weak random number generation can undermine confidentiality assumptions. The bundle does not provide CVSS scoring or confirmed real-world exploitation.
Executive priority
Handle as targeted legacy-risk cleanup, not an emergency, unless affected Cryptocat use protected sensitive communications. Prioritize confirmation of whether the software ever existed in the environment.
Technical view
The record describes an RNG weakness in Cryptocat before 2.0.22 involving strophe.js use of Math.random(). The available bundle does not include CWE mapping, CVSS vectors, affected CPEs, or detailed exploit conditions, so exposure should be validated by version and implementation review.
Likely exposure
Exposure is likely limited to historical Cryptocat deployments or retained builds before 2.0.22. The bundle lists no vendor/product CPEs, so asset matching may require software inventory and code/package review.
Exploitation context
CISA KEV status is false, and the provided sources do not establish active exploitation. A cited DecryptoCat reference suggests public research interest, but this analysis cannot infer exploitation in the wild from the bundle alone.
Researcher notes
The useful pivot is version validation: Cryptocat before 2.0.22 and strophe.js Math.random() in RNG logic. The bundle lacks exploit prerequisites, patch notes, CVSS, and CWE, so avoid over-scoring without additional primary evidence.
Mitigation direction
- Identify any Cryptocat installations or archived builds before 2.0.22.
- Upgrade or retire affected Cryptocat versions where found.
- Check original vendor or project guidance before relying on compatibility assumptions.
- Treat sensitive historical chat data as potentially exposed if affected versions were used.
Validation and detection
- Search endpoint and repository inventories for Cryptocat versions before 2.0.22.
- Review bundled strophe.js code for Math.random() use in security-sensitive paths.
- Confirm whether affected clients handled sensitive encrypted conversations.
- Document findings because no CPE or CVSS data is provided.
Public sources used
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
CVE-2013-4102 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- Unknown
- CVSS
- Not scored
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
CVSS and timeline data
No CVSS vectors or timeline events were available in the normalized CVE source material.
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2013/07/10/15CVE reference · x_refsource_MISC
- https://tobtu.com/decryptocat.phpCVE reference · x_refsource_MISC
- https://vuldb.com/?id.9443CVE reference · x_refsource_MISC
- https://www.securityfocus.com/bid/61095CVE reference · x_refsource_MISC
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.