CVE-2026-52907
Is CVE-2026-52907 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: media: rockchip: rkcif: fix off by one bugs Change these comparisons from > vs >= to avoid accessing one element beyond the end of the arrays. While at it, use ARRAY_SIZE instead of the _MAX enum values. [fix cosmetic issues]
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52907)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52907"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52907/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-52907"></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 (EPSS about 0%). 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-193.
- CVE-2021-3156HIGH 7.8KEVEPSS 99%
Sudo before 1.9.5p2 contains an off-by-one error that can result in a heap-based buffer overflow, which allows privilege escalation to root via "sudoedit -s" and a command-line argument that ends with a single backslash character.
- CVE-2026-44687LOW 3.7
In NLnet Labs Unbound 1.13.2 up to and including 1.25.1, stub or forward zones where the name is below an intermediate labed below a DNSSEC signed zone could be shadowed by the intermediate label's secure NXDOMAIN answer from the parent. This is caused by an off-by-one error in 'harden-below-nxdomain' logic; enabled by default. It effectively bypasses the configuration and the configured stub/forward zone is never contacted. 'harden-below-nxdomain' does an upward DNS cache walk together with a delegation point guard that does not allow NXDOMAIN synthesis above stub/forward zones. The guard tests the domain name but before stripping a label. This results in an iteration where the domain name equals the configured stub/forward zone apex that passes the guard, strips one more label, and probes the cache at the apex's immediate public parent. If that parent has a cached DNSSEC-secure NXDOMAIN, which it will for any private namespace nested two or more labels under a signed public name, the walk returns it and the configured stub/forward upstream is never contacted. This can only be triggered by the query for the intermediate label (between the stub/forward apex and the DNSSEC parent zone).
- CVE-2026-50497MED 6.5EPSS 1%
Off-by-one error in Windows Remote Desktop Protocol allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.
- CVE-2026-42015MED 5.3EPSS 1%
A flaw was found in gnutls. An off-by-one error exists in the PKCS#12 bag element bounds check. This vulnerability allows an remote attacker to write past the internal array of a PKCS#12 bag when appending to a bag that already contains 32 elements. This memory corruption could lead to a denial of service (DoS) or potentially other unspecified impacts.
- CVE-2026-54410HIGH 8.6Real · low riskEPSS 1%
nanoMODBUS through v1.23.0 contains an off-by-one buffer overflow in the recv_msg_header() function of the Modbus/TCP server that allows remote unauthenticated attackers to write one attacker-controlled byte past the end of the 260-byte receive buffer by sending a crafted MBAP frame whose Length field is set to 255. The overflow corrupts the adjacent buffer-index field of the nanoMODBUS state structure, resulting in denial of service through invalid memory accesses and, on bare-metal and RTOS targets without memory protection, one-byte information disclosure and writes to unintended register addresses on the Write Multiple Registers (FC16) handler path.
- CVE-2026-7831HIGH 7.6Real · low riskEPSS 1%
UltraVNC viewer through 1.8.2.2 contains an off-by-one stack buffer overflow in the RFB ServerInit message handler. In vncviewer/ClientConnection.cpp, when the server-supplied nameLength equals exactly 2024 the code declares a 2024-byte stack buffer _dn[2024] and calls ReadString(_dn, 2024). ReadString writes the NUL terminator at buf[length], i.e., _dn[2024], one byte past the end of the stack buffer. A malicious VNC server can trigger this condition by advertising a desktop name of length 2024 in its ServerInit message. On release builds without stack canaries the single-byte NUL overwrite adjacent stack data. On builds with /GS stack protection the canary is corrupted and the process terminates, resulting in denial of service. User interaction (connecting the viewer to the malicious server) is required.