CVE-2026-53223
is CVE-2026-53223real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
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:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: guard timestamp cmsgs to real error queue skbs skb_is_err_queue() treats PACKET_OUTGOING as the sole marker for an skb from sk_error_queue. That assumption is not true for AF_PACKET sockets: outgoing packet taps are also delivered to packet sockets with skb->pkt_type == PACKET_OUTGOING, but their skb->cb is owned by AF_PACKET instead of struct sock_exterr_skb. If such an skb is received with timestamping enabled, the generic timestamp cmsg path can read AF_PACKET control-buffer state as sock_exterr_skb::opt_stats. With SO_RXQ_OVFL enabled, the packet drop counter overlaps opt_stats. An odd drop count makes the path emit SCM_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_STATS with skb->len and skb->data. For non-linear skbs this copies past the linear head and can trigger hardened usercopy or disclose adjacent heap contents. Keep skb_is_err_queue() local to net/socket.c, but make it verify that the PACKET_OUTGOING marker is paired with the sock_rmem_free destructor installed by sock_queue_err_skb(). AF_PACKET receive skbs use normal receive ownership and no longer pass as error-queue skbs, while legitimate sk_error_queue entries keep the PACKET_OUTGOING marker and sock_rmem_free ownership.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53223)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53223"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53223/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53223"></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 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.