CVE-2026-45859
is CVE-2026-45859real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
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:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: nfnetlink_queue: do shared-unconfirmed check before segmentation Ulrich reports a regression with nfqueue: If an application did not set the 'F_GSO' capability flag and a gso packet with an unconfirmed nf_conn entry is received all packets are now dropped instead of queued, because the check happens after skb_gso_segment(). In that case, we did have exclusive ownership of the skb and its associated conntrack entry. The elevated use count is due to skb_clone happening via skb_gso_segment(). Move the check so that its peformed vs. the aggregated packet. Then, annotate the individual segments except the first one so we can do a 2nd check at reinject time. For the normal case, where userspace does in-order reinjects, this avoids packet drops: first reinjected segment continues traversal and confirms entry, remaining segments observe the confirmed entry. While at it, simplify nf_ct_drop_unconfirmed(): We only care about unconfirmed entries with a refcnt > 1, there is no need to special-case dying entries. This only happens with UDP. With TCP, the only unconfirmed packet will be the TCP SYN, those aren't aggregated by GRO. Next patch adds a udpgro test case to cover this scenario.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45859)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45859"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45859/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-45859"></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?
0 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.