Skip to content

CVE-2026-44608

Is CVE-2026-44608 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
5.9 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.3%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-413
CWE

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 →
Affected:Nlnetlabs

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

NLnet Labs Unbound 1.14.0 up to and including version 1.25.0 has a locking inconsistency vulnerability that when certain conditions are met (multi-threaded, RPZ XFR reload, RPZ zone with 'rpz-nsip'/'rpz-nsdname' triggers) it could result in heap use-after-free and eventual crash. An adversary can exploit the vulnerability if conditions are first met on a vulnerable Unbound, i.e., multi-threaded, an RPZ zone with 'rpz-nsip'/'rpz-nsdname' triggers and an ongoing XFR for that RPZ zone. Local RPZ files do not trigger the vulnerability. If the timing is right and an XFR happens at the same time another thread needs to read that RPZ zone, the reader may not hold the lock long enough and the thread applying the XFR may free objects that the reader is about to walk causing the use-after-free. Unbound 1.25.1 contains a patch with a fix to the locking code.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-44608
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-44608/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-44608)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-44608"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-44608/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-44608"></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

    No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.