Skip to content

CVE-2026-43500

Out-of-bounds Write: Is CVE-2026-43500 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

Community verdict: No field verdicts yet. Be the first practitioner to weigh in.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Yes
VulnCheck KEV · May 11, 2026
Public exploit
Metasploit +2
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
7.8 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
93%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds Write
CWE

Reported exploited in the wild (VulnCheck KEV), though not in CISA KEV yet. Treat it as urgent and check your exposure.

cisa ssvc

CISA Vulnrichment · assessed

Exploitation
None
in the wild
Automatable
No
at scale
Technical impact
Total
on success

CISA decision, by how critical the affected system is to you:

  • low impact → Track
  • medium impact → Track
  • high impact → Track*

Track: normal patch cycle · Track*: watch closely · Attend: patch sooner · Act: patch now. About SSVC ↗

public exploits

links to sources — we don’t host code

A working exploit is publicly available from a maintained source. Treat this as higher urgency and verify your exposure.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Likely real & worth prioritising

High base severity and a high real-world exploitation probability both point to a genuine, actively targeted issue.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →
Affected:Linux

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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rxrpc: Also unshare DATA/RESPONSE packets when paged frags are present The DATA-packet handler in rxrpc_input_call_event() and the RESPONSE handler in rxrpc_verify_response() copy the skb to a linear one before calling into the security ops only when skb_cloned() is true. An skb that is not cloned but still carries externally-owned paged fragments (e.g. SKBFL_SHARED_FRAG set by splice() into a UDP socket via __ip_append_data, or a chained skb_has_frag_list()) falls through to the in-place decryption path, which binds the frag pages directly into the AEAD/skcipher SGL via skb_to_sgvec(). Extend the gate to also unshare when skb_has_frag_list() or skb_has_shared_frag() is true. This catches the splice-loopback vector and other externally-shared frag sources while preserving the zero-copy fast path for skbs whose frags are kernel-private (e.g. NIC page_pool RX, GRO). The OOM/trace handling already in place is reused.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-43500
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-43500/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-43500)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-43500"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-43500/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-43500"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

timeline

  1. CISA SSVC assessment · exploitation: none
  2. Published by NVD
  3. Added to VulnCheck KEV · reported exploited in the wild

Score and exploit changes tracked since .

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: TruePositive's read from public sources is Real & exploitable — a starting point, not a community verdict.

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

    There is a Metasploit module for this, so exploitation is easy and reliable even without deep skill. Treat it as exploitable. FIRST EPSS estimates about a 93% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days, which is high relative to most CVEs. It needs local access, so it reads more as a privilege-escalation or post-access risk than a remote one. Patch this on priority and confirm the fix holds.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds Write.