Skip to content

CVE-2026-31427

Is CVE-2026-31427 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

☆ Watch

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
5.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.1%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-908
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: fix use of uninitialized rtp_addr in process_sdp process_sdp() declares union nf_inet_addr rtp_addr on the stack and passes it to the nf_nat_sip sdp_session hook after walking the SDP media descriptions. However rtp_addr is only initialized inside the media loop when a recognized media type with a non-zero port is found. If the SDP body contains no m= lines, only inactive media sections (m=audio 0 ...) or only unrecognized media types, rtp_addr is never assigned. Despite that, the function still calls hooks->sdp_session() with &rtp_addr, causing nf_nat_sdp_session() to format the stale stack value as an IP address and rewrite the SDP session owner and connection lines with it. With CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_ZERO (default on most distributions) this results in the session-level o= and c= addresses being rewritten to 0.0.0.0 for inactive SDP sessions. Without stack auto-init the rewritten address is whatever happened to be on the stack. Fix this by pre-initializing rtp_addr from the session-level connection address (caddr) when available, and tracking via a have_rtp_addr flag whether any valid address was established. Skip the sdp_session hook entirely when no valid address exists.

References

NVD MITRE CVE.org

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-31427
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-31427/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-31427)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-31427"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-31427/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-31427"></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

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.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Related CVEs

    Same weakness: CWE-908.