Skip to content

CVE-2026-32875

Integer Overflow: Is CVE-2026-32875 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.
0.5%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-190 · Integer Overflow
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 →

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

UltraJSON is a fast JSON encoder and decoder written in pure C with bindings for Python 3.7+. Versions 5.10 through 5.11.0 are vulnerable to buffer overflow or infinite loop through large indent handling. ujson.dumps() crashes the Python interpreter (segmentation fault) when the product of the indent parameter and the nested depth of the input exceeds INT32_MAX. It can also get stuck in an infinite loop if the indent is a large negative number. Both are caused by an integer overflow/underflow whilst calculating how much memory to reserve for indentation. And both can be used to achieve denial of service. To be vulnerable, a service must call ujson.dump()/ujson.dumps()/ujson.encode() whilst giving untrusted users control over the indent parameter and not restrict that indentation to reasonably small non-negative values. A service may also be vulnerable to the infinite loop if it uses a fixed negative indent. An underflow always occurs for any negative indent when the input data is at least one level nested but, for small negative indents, the underflow is usually accidentally rectified by another overflow. This issue has been fixed in version 5.12.0.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-32875
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-32875/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-32875)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-32875"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-32875/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-32875"></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-190 · Integer Overflow.