Skip to content

CVE-2026-53172

Out-of-bounds Read: Is CVE-2026-53172 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
7.8 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.1%
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:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: accel/ethosu: fix IFM region index out-of-bounds in command stream parser NPU_SET_IFM_REGION extracts the region index with param & 0x7f, giving a maximum value of 127. However region_size[] and output_region[] in struct ethosu_validated_cmdstream_info are both sized to NPU_BASEP_REGION_MAX (8), giving valid indices [0..7]. Every other region assignment in the same switch uses param & 0x7: NPU_SET_OFM_REGION: st.ofm.region = param & 0x7; NPU_SET_IFM2_REGION: st.ifm2.region = param & 0x7; NPU_SET_WEIGHT_REGION: st.weight[0].region = param & 0x7; NPU_SET_SCALE_REGION: st.scale[0].region = param & 0x7; The 0x7f mask on IFM is inconsistent and appears to be a typo. feat_matrix_length() and calc_sizes() use the region index directly as an array subscript into the kzalloc'd info struct: info->region_size[fm->region] = max(...); A userspace caller supplying NPU_SET_IFM_REGION with param > 7 causes a write up to 127*8 = 1016 bytes past the start of region_size[], corrupting adjacent kernel heap data. Fix by applying the same & 0x7 mask used by all other region assignments.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53172
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53172/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53172)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53172"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53172/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53172"></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

    This scores high on paper (CVSS 7.8) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 0%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It needs local access, so it reads more as a privilege-escalation or post-access risk than a remote one. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.

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.