Skip to content

CVE-2026-53134

Is CVE-2026-53134 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.
0.1%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-401
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: netfilter: nft_fib: fix stale stack leak via the OIFNAME register For NFT_FIB_RESULT_OIFNAME the destination register is declared with len = IFNAMSIZ (four 32-bit registers), but on the lookup-fail, RTN_LOCAL and oif-mismatch paths nft_fib{4,6}_eval() only writes one register via "*dest = 0". The remaining three registers are left as whatever was on the stack in nft_do_chain()'s struct nft_regs, and a downstream expression that loads the register span can leak that uninitialised kernel stack to userspace. The NFTA_FIB_F_PRESENT existence check has the same shape: it is only meaningful for NFT_FIB_RESULT_OIF, yet it was accepted for any result type while the eval stores a single byte via nft_reg_store8(), leaving the rest of the declared span stale. Fix both: - replace the bare "*dest = 0" in the eval with nft_fib_store_result(), which strscpy_pad()s the whole IFNAMSIZ for OIFNAME (and is already used on the other early-return path), and - restrict NFTA_FIB_F_PRESENT to NFT_FIB_RESULT_OIF and declare its destination as a single u8, so the marked span matches the one byte the eval writes.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53134
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53134/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53134)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53134"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53134/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53134"></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.

Same weakness: CWE-401.