CVE-2026-46260
Out-of-bounds Read: Is CVE-2026-46260 real, 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: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: ipv6: Fix out-of-bound access in fib6_add_rt2node(). syzbot reported out-of-bound read in fib6_add_rt2node(). [0] When IPv6 route is created with RTA_NH_ID, struct fib6_info does not have the trailing struct fib6_nh. The cited commit started to check !iter->fib6_nh->fib_nh_gw_family to ensure that rt6_qualify_for_ecmp() will return false for iter. If iter->nh is not NULL, rt6_qualify_for_ecmp() returns false anyway. Let's check iter->nh before reading iter->fib6_nh and avoid OOB read. [0]: BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in fib6_add_rt2node+0x349c/0x3500 net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1142 Read of size 1 at addr ffff8880384ba6de by task syz.0.18/5500 CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 5500 Comm: syz.0.18 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full) Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2 04/01/2014 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0xe8/0x150 lib/dump_stack.c:120 print_address_description mm/kasan/report.c:378 [inline] print_report+0xba/0x230 mm/kasan/report.c:482 kasan_report+0x117/0x150 mm/kasan/report.c:595 fib6_add_rt2node+0x349c/0x3500 net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1142 fib6_add_rt2node_nh net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1363 [inline] fib6_add+0x910/0x18c0 net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1531 __ip6_ins_rt net/ipv6/route.c:1351 [inline] ip6_route_add+0xde/0x1b0 net/ipv6/route.c:3957 inet6_rtm_newroute+0x268/0x19e0 net/ipv6/route.c:5660 rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x7d5/0xbe0 net/core/rtnetlink.c:6958 netlink_rcv_skb+0x232/0x4b0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2550 netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1318 [inline] netlink_unicast+0x80f/0x9b0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1344 netlink_sendmsg+0x813/0xb40 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1894 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:727 [inline] __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:742 [inline] ____sys_sendmsg+0xa68/0xad0 net/socket.c:2592 ___sys_sendmsg+0x2a5/0x360 net/socket.c:2646 __sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2678 [inline] __do_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2683 [inline] __se_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2681 [inline] __x64_sys_sendmsg+0x1bd/0x2a0 net/socket.c:2681 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xe2/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f RIP: 0033:0x7f9316b9aeb9 Code: ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 e8 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48 RSP: 002b:00007ffd8809b678 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002e RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007f9316e15fa0 RCX: 00007f9316b9aeb9 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000200000004380 RDI: 0000000000000003 RBP: 00007f9316c08c1f R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000 R13: 00007f9316e15fac R14: 00007f9316e15fa0 R15: 00007f9316e15fa0 </TASK> Allocated by task 5499: kasan_save_stack mm/kasan/common.c:57 [inline] kasan_save_track+0x3e/0x80 mm/kasan/common.c:78 poison_kmalloc_redzone mm/kasan/common.c:398 [inline] __kasan_kmalloc+0x93/0xb0 mm/kasan/common.c:415 kasan_kmalloc include/linux/kasan.h:263 [inline] __do_kmalloc_node mm/slub.c:5657 [inline] __kmalloc_noprof+0x40c/0x7e0 mm/slub.c:5669 kmalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:961 [inline] kzalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:1094 [inline] fib6_info_alloc+0x30/0xf0 net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:155 ip6_route_info_create+0x142/0x860 net/ipv6/route.c:3820 ip6_route_add+0x49/0x1b0 net/ipv6/route.c:3949 inet6_rtm_newroute+0x268/0x19e0 net/ipv6/route.c:5660 rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x7d5/0xbe0 net/core/rtnetlink.c:6958 netlink_rcv_skb+0x232/0x4b0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2550 netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1318 [inline] netlink_unicast+0x80f/0x9b0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1344 netlink_sendmsg+0x813/0xb40 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1894 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:727 [inline] __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:742 [inline] ____sys_sendmsg+0xa68/0xad0 net/socket.c:2592 ___sys_s ---truncated---
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46260)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46260"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46260/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-46260"></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 verdictsCurated 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
This scores high on paper (CVSS 7.8) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely. Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It needs local access, so it reads more as a privilege-escalation or post-access risk than a remote one. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read.
- CVE-2014-0160HIGH 7.5KEVEPSS 100%
The (1) TLS and (2) DTLS implementations in OpenSSL 1.0.1 before 1.0.1g do not properly handle Heartbeat Extension packets, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory via crafted packets that trigger a buffer over-read, as demonstrated by reading private keys, related to d1_both.c and t1_lib.c, aka the Heartbleed bug.
- CVE-2025-5777HIGH 7.5KEVEPSS 100%
Insufficient input validation leading to memory overread when the NetScaler is configured as a Gateway (VPN virtual server, ICA Proxy, CVPN, RDP Proxy) OR AAA virtual server
- CVE-2026-3055CRIT 9.8KEVEPSS 84%
Insufficient input validation in NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway when configured as a SAML IDP leading to memory overread
- CVE-2016-1646HIGH 8.8KEVEPSS 48%
The Array.prototype.concat implementation in builtins.cc in Google V8, as used in Google Chrome before 49.0.2623.108, does not properly consider element data types, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) or possibly have unspecified other impact via crafted JavaScript code.
- CVE-2023-36424HIGH 7.8KEVEPSS 12%
Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-11645HIGH 8.8KEVEPSS 2%
Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.103 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code inside a sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)