Sequential calls of encryption API (`encrypt`, `wrap`, and `dump`) result in nonce reuse
Problem: Trying to create a new encrypted message with the same cocoon object generates the same ciphertext. It mostly affects MiniCocoon and Cocoon objects with custom seeds and RNGs (where StdRng is used under the hood).
Note: The issue does NOT affect objects created with Cocoon::new which utilizes ThreadRng.
Cause: StdRng produces the same nonce because StdRng::clone resets its state.
Measure: Make encryption API mutable (encrypt, wrap, and dump).
Workaround: Create a new cocoon object with a new seed per each encryption.
How to Reproduce
let cocoon = MiniCocoon::from_password(b"password", &[1; 32]);
let mut data1 = "my secret data".to_owned().into_bytes();
let _ = cocoon.encrypt(&mut data1)?;
let mut data2 = "my secret data".to_owned().into_bytes();
let _ = cocoon.encrypt(&mut data2)?;
// data1: [23, 217, 251, 151, 179, 62, 85, 15, 253, 92, 192, 112, 200, 52]
// data2: [23, 217, 251, 151, 179, 62, 85, 15, 253, 92, 192, 112, 200, 52]
Workaround
For cocoon <= 0.3.3, create a new cocoon with a different seed per each encrypt/wrap/dump call.
let cocoon = MiniCocoon::from_password(b"password", &[1; 32]);
let mut data1 = "my secret data".to_owned().into_bytes();
let _ = cocoon.encrypt(&mut data1)?;
// Another seed: &[2; 32].
let cocoon = MiniCocoon::from_password(b"password", &[2; 32]);
let mut data2 = "my secret data".to_owned().into_bytes();
let _ = cocoon.encrypt(&mut data2)?;
// data1: [23, 217, 251, 151, 179, 62, 85, 15, 253, 92, 192, 112, 200, 52]
// data2: [53, 223, 209, 96, 130, 99, 209, 108, 83, 189, 123, 81, 19, 1]
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
Frequently Asked Questions
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.