CVE-2026-31709
Is CVE-2026-31709 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
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:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: smb: client: validate the whole DACL before rewriting it in cifsacl build_sec_desc() and id_mode_to_cifs_acl() derive a DACL pointer from a server-supplied dacloffset and then use the incoming ACL to rebuild the chmod/chown security descriptor. The original fix only checked that the struct smb_acl header fits before reading dacl_ptr->size or dacl_ptr->num_aces. That avoids the immediate header-field OOB read, but the rewrite helpers still walk ACEs based on pdacl->num_aces with no structural validation of the incoming DACL body. A malicious server can return a truncated DACL that still contains a header, claims one or more ACEs, and then drive replace_sids_and_copy_aces() or set_chmod_dacl() past the validated extent while they compare or copy attacker-controlled ACEs. Factor the DACL structural checks into validate_dacl(), extend them to validate each ACE against the DACL bounds, and use the shared validator before the chmod/chown rebuild paths. parse_dacl() reuses the same validator so the read-side parser and write-side rewrite paths agree on what constitutes a well-formed incoming DACL.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-31709)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-31709"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-31709/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-31709"></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 verdictsCurated 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
This scores high on paper (CVSS 8.8) 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. 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
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-1288.
- CVE-2026-42982HIGH 7.8Real · low riskEPSS 0%
Improper validation of consistency within input in Windows Secure Kernel Mode allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally.
- CVE-2026-15943MED 5.5EPSS 0%
A flaw was found in the Keycloak keycloak-services component, which handles the management of identity providers. The issue occurs when a delegated administrator updates an OIDC identity provider using a masked client secret sentinel value. Due to improper validation, Keycloak reuses the existing real secret even if security-sensitive fields like the token URL have been changed, allowing an attacker to redirect and capture the secret.