Skip to content

CVE-2026-52999

Out-of-bounds Read: Is CVE-2026-52999 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: netfilter: nfnetlink_osf: fix out-of-bounds read on option matching In nf_osf_match(), the nf_osf_hdr_ctx structure is initialized once and passed by reference to nf_osf_match_one() for each fingerprint checked. During TCP option parsing, nf_osf_match_one() advances the shared ctx->optp pointer. If a fingerprint perfectly matches, the function returns early without restoring ctx->optp to its initial state. If the user has configured NF_OSF_LOGLEVEL_ALL, the loop continues to the next fingerprint. However, because ctx->optp was not restored, the next call to nf_osf_match_one() starts parsing from the end of the options buffer. This causes subsequent matches to read garbage data and fail immediately, making it impossible to log more than one match or logging incorrect matches. Instead of using a shared ctx->optp pointer, pass the context as a constant pointer and use a local pointer (optp) for TCP option traversal. This makes nf_osf_match_one() strictly stateless from the caller's perspective, ensuring every fingerprint check starts at the correct option offset.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-52999
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52999/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52999)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52999"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52999/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-52999"></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.