CVE-2026-3904
Is CVE-2026-3904 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:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Calling NSS-backed functions that support caching via nscd may call the nscd client side code and in the GNU C Library version 2.36 under high load on x86_64 systems, the client may call memcmp on inputs that are concurrently modified by other processes or threads and crash. The nscd client in the GNU C Library uses the memcmp function with inputs that may be concurrently modified by another thread, potentially resulting in spurious cache misses, which in itself is not a security issue. However in the GNU C Library version 2.36 an optimized implementation of memcmp was introduced for x86_64 which could crash when invoked with such undefined behaviour, turning this into a potential crash of the nscd client and the application that uses it. This implementation was backported to the 2.35 branch, making the nscd client in that branch vulnerable as well. Subsequently, the fix for this issue was backported to all vulnerable branches in the GNU C Library repository. It is advised that distributions that may have cherry-picked the memcpy SSE2 optimization in their copy of the GNU C Library, also apply the fix to avoid the potential crash in the nscd client.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-3904)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-3904"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-3904/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-3904"></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 verdictsNo 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
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-366.