Skip to content

CVE-2026-52958

Out-of-bounds Read: Is CVE-2026-52958 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
9.1 Critical
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.5%
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:N/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: libceph: Fix potential out-of-bounds access in osdmap_decode() When decoding osd_state and osd_weight from an incoming osdmap in osdmap_decode(), both are decoded for each osd, i.e., map->max_osd times. The ceph_decode_need() check only accounts for sizeof(*map->osd_weight) once. This can potentially result in an out-of-bounds memory access if the incoming message is corrupted such that the max_osd value exceeds the actual content of the osdmap message. This patch fixes the issue by changing the corresponding part in the ceph_decode_need() check to account for map->max_osd*sizeof(*map->osd_weight).

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-52958
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52958/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52958)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52958"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52958/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-52958"></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.