Skip to content

CVE-2026-31402

Out-of-bounds Write: Is CVE-2026-31402 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
9.8 Critical
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.5%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds Write
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:H/I:H/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfsd: fix heap overflow in NFSv4.0 LOCK replay cache The NFSv4.0 replay cache uses a fixed 112-byte inline buffer (rp_ibuf[NFSD4_REPLAY_ISIZE]) to store encoded operation responses. This size was calculated based on OPEN responses and does not account for LOCK denied responses, which include the conflicting lock owner as a variable-length field up to 1024 bytes (NFS4_OPAQUE_LIMIT). When a LOCK operation is denied due to a conflict with an existing lock that has a large owner, nfsd4_encode_operation() copies the full encoded response into the undersized replay buffer via read_bytes_from_xdr_buf() with no bounds check. This results in a slab-out-of-bounds write of up to 944 bytes past the end of the buffer, corrupting adjacent heap memory. This can be triggered remotely by an unauthenticated attacker with two cooperating NFSv4.0 clients: one sets a lock with a large owner string, then the other requests a conflicting lock to provoke the denial. We could fix this by increasing NFSD4_REPLAY_ISIZE to allow for a full opaque, but that would increase the size of every stateowner, when most lockowners are not that large. Instead, fix this by checking the encoded response length against NFSD4_REPLAY_ISIZE before copying into the replay buffer. If the response is too large, set rp_buflen to 0 to skip caching the replay payload. The status is still cached, and the client already received the correct response on the original request.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-31402
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-31402/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-31402)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-31402"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-31402/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-31402"></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 9.8) 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-787 · Out-of-bounds Write.