Skip to content

CVE-2026-45536

Exposure of Sensitive Information: Is CVE-2026-45536 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
4 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.1%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-200 · Exposure of Sensitive Information
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

scanner noise

anonymous, aggregated from real reports · via Denoizr
ScannerFlagged inTurned out noise
Mend2 scans0%

How often this CVE was flagged by each scanner and how much turned out to be noise (false positives), aggregated anonymously from de-noised reports. Higher noise means the alert is more often not a real risk — verify your exposure.

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:L

Netty is a network application framework for development of protocol servers and clients. Prior to versions 4.1.135.Final and 4.2.15.Final, netty_unix_socket_recvFd sets msg_control to `char control[CMSG_SPACE(sizeof(int))]` (line 940) — 24 bytes on 64-bit Linux. A peer-sent SCM_RIGHTS cmsg carrying two ints has cmsg_len = CMSG_LEN(8) = 24, which fits exactly with no MSG_CTRUNC, so the kernel installs both fds in the receiving process. The subsequent check `cmsg->cmsg_len == CMSG_LEN(sizeof(int))` (line 972, expected 20) fails, the branch that would read the fd is skipped, and neither installed fd is closed. The for(;;) loop calls recvmsg again (non-blocking → EAGAIN → Java maps to 0 → read loop exits normally), leaving two leaked fds per message. There is no MSG_CTRUNC handling. Reachable via Epoll/KQueue DomainSocketChannel when the application opts into DomainSocketReadMode.FILE_DESCRIPTORS (non-default). Versions 4.1.135.Final and 4.2.15.Final patch the issue.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-45536
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45536/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45536)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45536"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45536/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-45536"></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.

Same weakness: CWE-200 · Exposure of Sensitive Information.