Skip to content

CVE-2026-46263

Out-of-bounds Read: Is CVE-2026-46263 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-125 · Out-of-bounds Read
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: drm/amd/display: Fix out-of-bounds stream encoder index v3 eng_id can be negative and that stream_enc_regs[] can be indexed out of bounds. eng_id is used directly as an index into stream_enc_regs[], which has only 5 entries. When eng_id is 5 (ENGINE_ID_DIGF) or negative, this can access memory past the end of the array. Add a bounds check using ARRAY_SIZE() before using eng_id as an index. The unsigned cast also rejects negative values. This avoids out-of-bounds access. Fixes the below smatch error: dcn*_resource.c: stream_encoder_create() may index stream_enc_regs[eng_id] out of bounds (size 5). drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/resource/dcn351/dcn351_resource.c 1246 static struct stream_encoder *dcn35_stream_encoder_create( 1247 enum engine_id eng_id, 1248 struct dc_context *ctx) 1249 { ... 1255 1256 /* Mapping of VPG, AFMT, DME register blocks to DIO block instance */ 1257 if (eng_id <= ENGINE_ID_DIGF) { ENGINE_ID_DIGF is 5. should <= be <? Unrelated but, ugh, why is Smatch saying that "eng_id" can be negative? end_id is type signed long, but there are checks in the caller which prevent it from being negative. 1258 vpg_inst = eng_id; 1259 afmt_inst = eng_id; 1260 } else 1261 return NULL; 1262 ... 1281 1282 dcn35_dio_stream_encoder_construct(enc1, ctx, ctx->dc_bios, 1283 eng_id, vpg, afmt, --> 1284 &stream_enc_regs[eng_id], ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This stream_enc_regs[] array has 5 elements so we are one element beyond the end of the array. ... 1287 return &enc1->base; 1288 } v2: use explicit bounds check as suggested by Roman/Dan; avoid unsigned int cast v3: The compiler already knows how to compare the two values, so the cast (int) is not needed. (Roman)

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-46263
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46263/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46263)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46263"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46263/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-46263"></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

    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
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read.