Skip to content

CVE-2026-46403

Is CVE-2026-46403 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
6.3 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.3%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-693
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N

Klever-Go is the Go implementation of the Klever blockchain protocol. Prior to 1.7.17, KVM exposes `ExecuteReadOnlyWithTypedArguments` as a read-only execution mechanism. The hook saves the previous read-only state, sets `runtime.SetReadOnly(true)`, executes the destination context, and then restores the previous read-only state. However, the indirect contract delete and upgrade paths do not reject execution when `runtime.ReadOnly()` is true. As a result, a contract reached through read-only execution can call the production delete hook for a target contract it owns. The delete path appends the target address to `vmOutput.DeletedAccounts`, the output context merges `DeletedAccounts` into the caller output, and the smart contract processor later processes the VM output by deleting accounts listed in that field. The root cause is that read-only mode is applied as runtime state, but not enforced by the state-changing delete and upgrade host-core paths. This breaks the expected isolation boundary for workflows that rely on read-only calls to inspect another contract without allowing that callee to produce state-changing VM output. The issue is fixed in v1.7.17. Contract delete and upgrade host-core paths now reject execution when `runtime.ReadOnly()` is true. The invariant is regression-tested for delete, upgrade, storage writes, value transfers, and any VM output field that can later mutate chain state.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-46403
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46403/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46403)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46403"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46403/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-46403"></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

    No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-693.