CVE-2026-1519
Is CVE-2026-1519 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.
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:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
If a BIND resolver is performing DNSSEC validation and encounters a maliciously crafted zone, the resolver may consume excessive CPU. Authoritative-only servers are generally unaffected, although there are circumstances where authoritative servers may make recursive queries (see: https://kb.isc.org/docs/why-does-my-authoritative-server-make-recursive-queries). This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.46, 9.20.0 through 9.20.20, 9.21.0 through 9.21.19, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.46-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.20-S1.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-1519)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-1519"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-1519/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-1519"></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 verdictsNo 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
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-606.
- CVE-2026-27145MED 6.5EPSS 1%
(*x509.Certificate).VerifyHostname previously called matchHostnames in a loop over all DNS Subject Alternative Name (SAN) entries. This caused strings.Split(host, ".") to execute repeatedly on the same input hostname. With a large DNS SAN list, verification costs scaled quadratically based on the number of SAN entries multiplied by the hostname's label count. Because x509.Verify validates hostnames before building the certificate chain, this overhead occurred even for untrusted certificates.
- CVE-2026-33800MED 6.5EPSS 0%
An Unchecked Input for Loop Condition vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (pfe) of Juniper Networks Junos OS on MX Series allows an unauthenticated, adjacent attacker to cause a Denial-of-Service (DoS).Micro-BFD session flaps generate respective up/down events which are queued by PFEMAN for processing. Especially in a Virtual-Chassis (VC) scenario with locality‑bias configured, processing takes a significant amount of time for each event. If these sessions keep flapping, new events are constantly added, and in turn PFEMAN never completes processing these events. This results in the PFEMAN watchdog timer expiring, which causes the FPC to crash and restart, representing a complete service outage. This issue only affects MX series FPCs up to and including MPC9. It does not affect MPC10/11, LC4800/9600 and MX304. This issue affects Junos OS on MX Series: * all versions before 23.2R2-S7, * 23.4 versions before 23.4R2-S8, * 24.2 versions before 24.2R2-S4, * 24.4 versions before 24.4R2-S3, * 25.2 versions before 25.2R2.
- CVE-2026-15172MED 5.5EPSS 0%
FMP/NOTIFY protocol dissector crash in Wireshark 4.6.0 to 4.6.6 and 4.4.0 to 4.4.16 allows denial of service