Skip to content

CVE-2026-28386

Out-of-bounds Read: Is CVE-2026-28386 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.
0.3%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read
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:OpenSSL

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

Issue summary: Applications using AES-CFB128 encryption or decryption on systems with AVX-512 and VAES support can trigger an out-of-bounds read of up to 15 bytes when processing partial cipher blocks. Impact summary: This out-of-bounds read may trigger a crash which leads to Denial of Service for an application if the input buffer ends at a memory page boundary and the following page is unmapped. There is no information disclosure as the over-read bytes are not written to output. The vulnerable code path is only reached when processing partial blocks (when a previous call left an incomplete block and the current call provides fewer bytes than needed to complete it). Additionally, the input buffer must be positioned at a page boundary with the following page unmapped. CFB mode is not used in TLS/DTLS protocols, which use CBC, GCM, CCM, or ChaCha20-Poly1305 instead. For these reasons the issue was assessed as Low severity according to our Security Policy. Only x86-64 systems with AVX-512 and VAES instruction support are affected. Other architectures and systems without VAES support use different code paths that are not affected. OpenSSL FIPS module in 3.6 version is affected by this issue.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-28386
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-28386/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-28386)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-28386"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-28386/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-28386"></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-125 · Out-of-bounds Read.