Skip to content

CVE-2026-23419

Is CVE-2026-23419 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-667
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 →
Affected:Linux

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: net/rds: Fix circular locking dependency in rds_tcp_tune syzbot reported a circular locking dependency in rds_tcp_tune() where sk_net_refcnt_upgrade() is called while holding the socket lock: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected ====================================================== kworker/u10:8/15040 is trying to acquire lock: ffffffff8e9aaf80 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __kmalloc_cache_noprof+0x4b/0x6f0 but task is already holding lock: ffff88805a3c1ce0 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET6){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: rds_tcp_tune+0xd7/0x930 The issue occurs because sk_net_refcnt_upgrade() performs memory allocation (via get_net_track() -> ref_tracker_alloc()) while the socket lock is held, creating a circular dependency with fs_reclaim. Fix this by moving sk_net_refcnt_upgrade() outside the socket lock critical section. This is safe because the fields modified by the sk_net_refcnt_upgrade() call (sk_net_refcnt, ns_tracker) are not accessed by any concurrent code path at this point. v2: - Corrected fixes tag - check patch line wrap nits - ai commentary nits

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-23419
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-23419/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-23419)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-23419"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-23419/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-23419"></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-667.