Skip to content

CVE-2026-14630

Is CVE-2026-14630 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
3.1 Low
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-327
CWE

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 · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

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

A vulnerability has been found in ForceInjection AI-fundermentals 2.0/3.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function get_conversation_history of the file 08_agentic_system/memory/langchain/code/smart_customer_service.py of the component Memory Recall Handler. The manipulation leads to use of weak hash. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. A high degree of complexity is needed for the attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier of the patch is f57277fdd9ba373ace72d83c272023ec67f720d6. It is suggested to install a patch to address this issue. The project confirms (translated from Chinese): "We now require session ownership verification in methods such as `username`, `sessionowner`, etc., and we've chat()changed the generation of `sessionowner` to include verified user identity and security context metadata."

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-14630
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-14630/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-14630)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-14630"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-14630/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-14630"></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

    No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-327.