CVE-2026-53082
Is CVE-2026-53082 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
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: net: hamradio: 6pack: fix uninit-value in sixpack_receive_buf sixpack_receive_buf() does not properly skip bytes with TTY error flags. The while loop iterates through the flags buffer but never advances the data pointer (cp), and passes the original count (including error bytes) to sixpack_decode(). This causes sixpack_decode() to process bytes that should have been skipped due to TTY errors. The TTY layer does not guarantee that cp[i] holds a meaningful value when fp[i] is set, so passing those positions to sixpack_decode() results in KMSAN reporting an uninit-value read. Fix this by processing bytes one at a time, advancing cp on each iteration, and only passing valid (non-error) bytes to sixpack_decode(). This matches the pattern used by slip_receive_buf() and mkiss_receive_buf() for the same purpose.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53082)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53082"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53082/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53082"></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 verdictsNo 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
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-908.
- CVE-2024-50302MED 5.5KEVEPSS 1%
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: core: zero-initialize the report buffer Since the report buffer is used by all kinds of drivers in various ways, let's zero-initialize it during allocation to make sure that it can't be ever used to leak kernel memory via specially-crafted report.
- CVE-2024-29745MED 5.5KEVEPSS 0%
there is a possible Information Disclosure due to uninitialized data. This could lead to local information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
- CVE-2024-50014MED 5.5EPSS 0%
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: fix access to uninitialised lock in fc replay path The following kernel trace can be triggered with fstest generic/629 when executed against a filesystem with fast-commit feature enabled: INFO: trying to register non-static key. The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe you didn't initialize this object before use? turning off the locking correctness validator. CPU: 0 PID: 866 Comm: mount Not tainted 6.10.0+ #11 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.2-3-gd478f380-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x66/0x90 register_lock_class+0x759/0x7d0 __lock_acquire+0x85/0x2630 ? __find_get_block+0xb4/0x380 lock_acquire+0xd1/0x2d0 ? __ext4_journal_get_write_access+0xd5/0x160 _raw_spin_lock+0x33/0x40 ? __ext4_journal_get_write_access+0xd5/0x160 __ext4_journal_get_write_access+0xd5/0x160 ext4_reserve_inode_write+0x61/0xb0 __ext4_mark_inode_dirty+0x79/0x270 ? ext4_ext_replay_set_iblocks+0x2f8/0x450 ext4_ext_replay_set_iblocks+0x330/0x450 ext4_fc_replay+0x14c8/0x1540 ? jread+0x88/0x2e0 ? rcu_is_watching+0x11/0x40 do_one_pass+0x447/0xd00 jbd2_journal_recover+0x139/0x1b0 jbd2_journal_load+0x96/0x390 ext4_load_and_init_journal+0x253/0xd40 ext4_fill_super+0x2cc6/0x3180 ... In the replay path there's an attempt to lock sbi->s_bdev_wb_lock in function ext4_check_bdev_write_error(). Unfortunately, at this point this spinlock has not been initialized yet. Moving it's initialization to an earlier point in __ext4_fill_super() fixes this splat.
- CVE-2025-71113MED 5.5EPSS 0%
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: crypto: af_alg - zero initialize memory allocated via sock_kmalloc Several crypto user API contexts and requests allocated with sock_kmalloc() were left uninitialized, relying on callers to set fields explicitly. This resulted in the use of uninitialized data in certain error paths or when new fields are added in the future. The ACVP patches also contain two user-space interface files: algif_kpp.c and algif_akcipher.c. These too rely on proper initialization of their context structures. A particular issue has been observed with the newly added 'inflight' variable introduced in af_alg_ctx by commit: 67b164a871af ("crypto: af_alg - Disallow multiple in-flight AIO requests") Because the context is not memset to zero after allocation, the inflight variable has contained garbage values. As a result, af_alg_alloc_areq() has incorrectly returned -EBUSY randomly when the garbage value was interpreted as true: https://github.com/gregkh/linux/blame/master/crypto/af_alg.c#L1209 The check directly tests ctx->inflight without explicitly comparing against true/false. Since inflight is only ever set to true or false later, an uninitialized value has triggered -EBUSY failures. Zero-initializing memory allocated with sock_kmalloc() ensures inflight and other fields start in a known state, removing random issues caused by uninitialized data.