CVE-2026-34224
Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU): Is CVE-2026-34224 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
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:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Parse Server is an open source backend that can be deployed to any infrastructure that can run Node.js. Prior to versions 8.6.64 and 9.7.0-alpha.8, an attacker who possesses a valid authentication provider token and a single MFA recovery code or SMS one-time password can create multiple authenticated sessions by sending concurrent login requests via the authData login endpoint. This defeats the single-use guarantee of MFA recovery codes and SMS one-time passwords, allowing session persistence even after the legitimate user revokes detected sessions. This issue has been patched in versions 8.6.64 and 9.7.0-alpha.8.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-34224)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-34224"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-34224/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-34224"></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
No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-367 · Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU).
- CVE-2024-30088HIGH 7KEVEPSS 68%
Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
- CVE-2023-35311HIGH 8.8KEVEPSS 16%
Microsoft Outlook Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
- CVE-2025-22224CRIT 9.3KEVEPSS 2%
VMware ESXi, and Workstation contain a TOCTOU (Time-of-Check Time-of-Use) vulnerability that leads to an out-of-bounds write. A malicious actor with local administrative privileges on a virtual machine may exploit this issue to execute code as the virtual machine's VMX process running on the host.
- CVE-2025-38352HIGH 7.4KEVEPSS 1%
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-cpu-timers: fix race between handle_posix_cpu_timers() and posix_cpu_timer_del() If an exiting non-autoreaping task has already passed exit_notify() and calls handle_posix_cpu_timers() from IRQ, it can be reaped by its parent or debugger right after unlock_task_sighand(). If a concurrent posix_cpu_timer_del() runs at that moment, it won't be able to detect timer->it.cpu.firing != 0: cpu_timer_task_rcu() and/or lock_task_sighand() will fail. Add the tsk->exit_state check into run_posix_cpu_timers() to fix this. This fix is not needed if CONFIG_POSIX_CPU_TIMERS_TASK_WORK=y, because exit_task_work() is called before exit_notify(). But the check still makes sense, task_work_add(&tsk->posix_cputimers_work.work) will fail anyway in this case.
- CVE-2022-48618HIGH 7KEVEPSS 0%
The issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Ventura 13.1, watchOS 9.2, iOS 16.2 and iPadOS 16.2, tvOS 16.2. An attacker with arbitrary read and write capability may be able to bypass Pointer Authentication. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been exploited against versions of iOS released before iOS 15.7.1.
- CVE-2026-62428HIGH 7.8
When grant-copy operations are processed, the respective grant may or may not already be in use by another operation (a mapping or another copy). For all copy operations the referenced guest frame is looked up. When another operation is already active for the grant (the grant is "pinned"), what is being supplied back to actually carry out permission checks and copy operation may not be consistent: The permission check may be carried out on a page different from the one involved in the copy.