Skip to content

CVE-2026-53180

is CVE-2026-53180real, 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
7.5 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.5%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-667
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:N/I:N/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: timers/migration: Fix livelock in tmigr_handle_remote_up() tmigr_handle_remote_cpu() skips timer_expire_remote() when cpu == smp_processor_id(), assuming the local softirq path already handled this CPU's timers. This assumption is wrong because jiffies can advance after the handling of the CPU's global timers in run_timer_base(BASE_GLOBAL) and before tmigr_handle_remote() evaluates the expiry times. As a consequence a timer which expires after the CPU local timer wheel advanced and becomes expired in the remote handling is ignored and the callback is never invoked and removed from the timer wheel. What's worse is that fetch_next_timer_interrupt_remote() keeps reporting it as expired, and the event is re-queued with expires == now on each iteration. The goto-again loop spins indefinitely. Fix this by calling timer_expire_remote() unconditionally. That's minimal overhead for the common case as __run_timer_base() returns immediately if there is nothing to expire in the local wheel. [ tglx: Amend change log and add a comment ]

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53180
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53180/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53180)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53180"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53180/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53180"></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-667.