Skip to content

CVE-2026-53047

Is CVE-2026-53047 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
5.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
Not classified
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:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi/capsule-loader: fix incorrect sizeof in phys array reallocation The krealloc() call for cap_info->phys in __efi_capsule_setup_info() uses sizeof(phys_addr_t *) instead of sizeof(phys_addr_t), which might be causing an undersized allocation. The allocation is also inconsistent with the initial array allocation in efi_capsule_open() that allocates one entry with sizeof(phys_addr_t), and the efi_capsule_write() function that stores phys_addr_t values (not pointers) via page_to_phys(). On 64-bit systems where sizeof(phys_addr_t) == sizeof(phys_addr_t *), this goes unnoticed. On 32-bit systems with PAE where phys_addr_t is 64-bit but pointers are 32-bit, this allocates half the required space, which might lead to a heap buffer overflow when storing physical addresses. This is similar to the bug fixed in commit fccfa646ef36 ("efi/capsule-loader: fix incorrect allocation size") which fixed the same issue at the initial allocation site.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53047
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53047/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53047)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53047"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53047/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53047"></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.