CVE-2026-0099
Is CVE-2026-0099 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Low signal — verdict needed
Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.
Based on CVSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
In onNullBinding of HostEmulationManager.java, there is a possible way to launch an activity from the background due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-0099)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-0099"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-0099/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-0099"></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 verdictsCurated 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
This scores high on paper (CVSS 7.8) 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. 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
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-273.
- CVE-2026-44073MED 5EPSS 0%
Authentication modules in Netatalk 1.5.0 through 4.4.2 fail to check the return value of seteuid(), which may allow a remote authenticated attacker to retain elevated privileges under error conditions.
- CVE-2026-60085HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 0%
PraisonAI before 4.6.78 contains an unenforced security policy vulnerability in the default Subprocess Sandbox backend where blocked_commands, blocked_paths, blocked_imports, allow_subprocess, and allow_file_write restrictions are completely ignored. Attackers can execute arbitrary subprocess commands, read sensitive files, and perform destructive operations despite explicit security policy configuration.