Skip to content

CVE-2026-23414

Is CVE-2026-23414 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
7.5 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-401
CWE

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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tls: Purge async_hold in tls_decrypt_async_wait() The async_hold queue pins encrypted input skbs while the AEAD engine references their scatterlist data. Once tls_decrypt_async_wait() returns, every AEAD operation has completed and the engine no longer references those skbs, so they can be freed unconditionally. A subsequent patch adds batch async decryption to tls_sw_read_sock(), introducing a new call site that must drain pending AEAD operations and release held skbs. Move __skb_queue_purge(&ctx->async_hold) into tls_decrypt_async_wait() so the purge is centralized and every caller -- recvmsg's drain path, the -EBUSY fallback in tls_do_decryption(), and the new read_sock batch path -- releases held skbs on synchronization without each site managing the purge independently. This fixes a leak when tls_strp_msg_hold() fails part-way through, after having added some cloned skbs to the async_hold queue. tls_decrypt_sg() will then call tls_decrypt_async_wait() to process all pending decrypts, and drop back to synchronous mode, but tls_sw_recvmsg() only flushes the async_hold queue when one record has been processed in "fully-async" mode, which may not be the case here. [pabeni@redhat.com: added leak comment]

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-23414
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-23414/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-23414)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-23414"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-23414/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-23414"></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

    This scores high on paper (CVSS 7.5) 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 is reachable over the network with no authentication and no user interaction, which is the most dangerous profile. 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
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-401.