Skip to content

CVE-2026-45860

is CVE-2026-45860real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Base severity
7.5 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.7%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
Not classified
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 →
Affected:Linux

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: nf_conncount: increase the connection clean up limit to 64 After the optimization to only perform one GC per jiffy, a new problem was introduced. If more than 8 new connections are tracked per jiffy the list won't be cleaned up fast enough possibly reaching the limit wrongly. In order to prevent this issue, only skip the GC if it was already triggered during the same jiffy and the increment is lower than the clean up limit. In addition, increase the clean up limit to 64 connections to avoid triggering GC too often and do more effective GCs. This has been tested using a HTTP server and several performance tools while having nft_connlimit/xt_connlimit or OVS limit configured. Output of slowhttptest + OVS limit at 52000 connections: slow HTTP test status on 340th second: initializing: 0 pending: 432 connected: 51998 error: 0 closed: 0 service available: YES

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-45860
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45860/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45860)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45860"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45860/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-45860"></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 verdicts
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.