Skip to content

CVE-2026-45837

Use After Free: Is CVE-2026-45837 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
7.8 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.1%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-416 · Use After Free
CWE

High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Real, but low real-world risk

A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

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: bpf: Fix use-after-free in arena_vm_close on fork arena_vm_open() only bumps vml->mmap_count but never registers the child VMA in arena->vma_list. The vml->vma always points at the parent VMA, so after parent munmap the pointer dangles. If the child then calls bpf_arena_free_pages(), zap_pages() reads the stale vml->vma triggering use-after-free. Fix this by preventing the arena VMA from being inherited across fork with VM_DONTCOPY, and preventing VMA splits via the may_split callback. Also reject mremap with a .mremap callback returning -EINVAL. A same-size mremap(MREMAP_FIXED) on the full arena VMA reaches copy_vma() through the following path: check_prep_vma() - returns 0 early: new_len == old_len skips VM_DONTEXPAND check prep_move_vma() - vm_start == old_addr and vm_end == old_addr + old_len so may_split is never called move_vma() copy_vma_and_data() copy_vma() vm_area_dup() - copies vm_private_data (vml pointer) vm_ops->open() - bumps vml->mmap_count vm_ops->mremap() - returns -EINVAL, rollback unmaps new VMA The refcount ensures the rollback's arena_vm_close does not free the vml shared with the original VMA.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-45837
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45837/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45837)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45837"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45837/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-45837"></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

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.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-416 · Use After Free.