Is CVE-2025-71311 exploitable?

No community verdicts yet for CVE-2025-71311. Be the first to weigh in.

Is CVE-2025-71311 a false positive?

No community verdicts yet for CVE-2025-71311.

How do I remediate CVE-2025-71311?

See the authoritative references (NVD, vendor advisory) and community field notes on this page for remediation guidance.

CVE-2025-71311

is CVE-2025-71311real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

☆ Watch

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild

Not listed

CISA KEV

Base severity

5.5 Medium

CVSS

Exploitation prob.

0.2%

FIRST EPSS

Weakness

CWE-908

CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fs/ntfs3: Initialize new folios before use KMSAN reports an uninitialized value in longest_match_std(), invoked from ntfs_compress_write(). When new folios are allocated without being marked uptodate and ni_read_frame() is skipped because the caller expects the frame to be completely overwritten, some reserved folios may remain only partially filled, leaving the rest memory uninitialized.

References

NVD MITRE CVE.org

Published May 27, 2026

Embed this verdict

Markdown

[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-71311/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-71311)

HTML

<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-71311"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-71311/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2025-71311"></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?

0 verdicts

Not a real issue

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.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

Add a field note or remediationoptional

Same weakness: CWE-908.

CVE-2026-45886MED 5.5EPSS 0%
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix bpf_xdp_store_bytes proto for read-only arg While making some maps in Cilium read-only from the BPF side, we noticed that the bpf_xdp_store_bytes proto is incorrect. In particular, the verifier was throwing the following error: ; ret = ctx_store_bytes(ctx, l3_off + offsetof(struct iphdr, saddr), &nat->address, 4, 0); 635: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -144) ; R1=ctx() R10=fp0 fp-144=ctx() 636: (b4) w2 = 26 ; R2=26 637: (b4) w4 = 4 ; R4=4 638: (b4) w5 = 0 ; R5=0 639: (85) call bpf_xdp_store_bytes#190 write into map forbidden, value_size=6 off=0 size=4 nat comes from a BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG map, so R3 is a PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE. The verifier checks the helper's memory access to R3 in check_mem_size_reg, as it reaches ARG_CONST_SIZE argument. The third argument has expected type ARG_PTR_TO_UNINIT_MEM, which includes the MEM_WRITE flag. The verifier thus checks for a BPF_WRITE access on R3. Given R3 points to a read-only map, the check fails. Conversely, ARG_PTR_TO_UNINIT_MEM can also lead to the helper reading from uninitialized memory. This patch simply fixes the expected argument type to match that of bpf_skb_store_bytes.

CVE-2025-71311

Community ground truth

Field notes & remediation

Related CVEs