Skip to content

CVE-2026-52955

Out-of-bounds Read: Is CVE-2026-52955 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
9.8 Critical
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.4%
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:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: libceph: Fix potential out-of-bounds access in crush_decode() A message of type CEPH_MSG_OSD_MAP containing a crush map with at least one bucket has two fields holding the bucket algorithm. If the values in these two fields differ, an out-of-bounds access can occur. This is the case because the first algorithm field (alg) is used to allocate the correct amount of memory for a bucket of this type, while the second algorithm field inside the bucket (b->alg) is used in the subsequent processing. This patch fixes the issue by adding a check that compares alg and b->alg and aborts the processing in case they differ. Furthermore, b->alg is set to 0 in this case, because the destruction of the crush map also uses this field to determine the bucket type, which can again result in an out-of-bounds access when trying to free the memory pointed to by the fields of the bucket. To correctly free the memory allocated for the bucket in such a case, the corresponding call to kfree is moved from the algorithm-specific crush_destroy_bucket functions to the generic crush_destroy_bucket().

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-52955
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52955/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52955)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52955"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52955/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-52955"></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

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.

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