Skip to content

CVE-2025-71306

Out-of-bounds Read: Is CVE-2025-71306 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

☆ Watch

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
7.1 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.1%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read
CWE

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:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ima: Fix stack-out-of-bounds in is_bprm_creds_for_exec() KASAN reported a stack-out-of-bounds access in ima_appraise_measurement from is_bprm_creds_for_exec: BUG: KASAN: stack-out-of-bounds in ima_appraise_measurement+0x12dc/0x16a0 Read of size 1 at addr ffffc9000160f940 by task sudo/550 The buggy address belongs to stack of task sudo/550 and is located at offset 24 in frame: ima_appraise_measurement+0x0/0x16a0 This frame has 2 objects: [48, 56) 'file' [80, 148) 'hash' This is caused by using container_of on the *file pointer. This offset calculation is what triggers the stack-out-of-bounds error. In order to fix this, pass in a bprm_is_check boolean which can be set depending on how process_measurement is called. If the caller has a linux_binprm pointer and the function is BPRM_CHECK we can determine is_check and set it then. Otherwise set it to false.

References

NVD MITRE CVE.org

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2025-71306
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-71306/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-71306)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-71306"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-71306/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2025-71306"></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 verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated 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
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    This scores high on paper (CVSS 7.1) 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 0%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It needs local access, so it reads more as a privilege-escalation or post-access risk than a remote one. 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
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Related CVEs

Same weakness: CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read.