Skip to content

CVE-2026-53176

is CVE-2026-53176real, 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
9.8 Critical
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.7%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-191
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:H/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: IB/isert: Reject login PDUs shorter than ISER_HEADERS_LEN In drivers/infiniband/ulp/isert/ib_isert.c, isert_login_recv_done() computes the login request payload length as wc->byte_len minus ISER_HEADERS_LEN with no lower bound, and login_req_len is a signed int. A remote iSER initiator can post a login Send work request carrying fewer than ISER_HEADERS_LEN (76) bytes, so the subtraction underflows and login_req_len becomes negative. isert_rx_login_req() then reads that negative length back into a signed int, takes size = min(rx_buflen, MAX_KEY_VALUE_PAIRS), and because the min() is signed it keeps the negative value; the value is then passed as the memcpy() length and sign-extended to a multi-gigabyte size_t. The copy into the 8192-byte login->req_buf runs far out of bounds and faults, crashing the target node. The login phase precedes iSCSI authentication, so no credentials are required to reach this path. Reject any login PDU shorter than ISER_HEADERS_LEN before the subtraction, mirroring the existing early return on a failed work completion, so login_req_len can never go negative. The upper bound was already safe: a posted login buffer cannot deliver more than ISER_RX_PAYLOAD_SIZE, so the difference stays at or below MAX_KEY_VALUE_PAIRS and the existing min() clamps it; only the missing lower bound needs to be added.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53176
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53176/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53176)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53176"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53176/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53176"></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?

0 verdicts
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-191.