CVE-2026-14191
Is CVE-2026-14191 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.
public exploits
links to sources — we don’t host codeUnverified proof-of-concept code has been published. It may or may not be functional — assess before relying on it.
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:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
An out-of-bounds heap write exists in the RAR5 recovery-volume (.rev) parser in WinRAR and UnRAR (RecVolumes5::ReadHeader in recvol5.cpp). The RecItems vector is sized only when the first .rev file in a set is processed; subsequent .rev files supply an independent RecNum value that is validated against that file's own TotalCount field but never against the actual size of RecItems. A crafted set of two or more .rev files can therefore write an attacker-controlled 32-bit value (the header's RevCRC field) to RecItems[RecNum] at an attacker-controlled offset up to 65534 * sizeof(RecVolItem) bytes past the allocation, corrupting adjacent heap objects. Triggering requires the victim to run a recovery/test operation on an attacker-supplied .rev set (for example 'unrar t x.part1.rev', WinRAR 'Repair archive', or auto-recovery when extracting a volume set with a missing .rar part). This is the RAR5-path sibling of CVE-2023-40477 (which was fixed in the RAR3 path only in WinRAR 6.23). Fixed in WinRAR / RAR 7.23.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-14191)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-14191"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-14191/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-14191"></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 (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
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-129.
- CVE-2022-48503HIGH 8.8KEVEPSS 3%
The issue was addressed with improved bounds checks. This issue is fixed in tvOS 15.6, watchOS 8.7, iOS 15.6 and iPadOS 15.6, macOS Monterey 12.5, Safari 15.6. Processing web content may lead to arbitrary code execution.
- CVE-2022-35737HIGH 7.5EPSS 21%
SQLite 1.0.12 through 3.39.x before 3.39.2 sometimes allows an array-bounds overflow if billions of bytes are used in a string argument to a C API.