Skip to content

CVE-2026-53230

is CVE-2026-53230real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Base severity
8.7 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
Not classified
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:C/C:H/I:L/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5: Fix slab-out-of-bounds in mlx5_query_nic_vport_mac_list mlx5_query_nic_vport_mac_list() sizes its firmware command buffer using the PF's log_max_current_uc/mc_list capabilities. When querying a VF vport with a larger configured max (via devlink), the firmware response can overflow this buffer: BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in mlx5_query_nic_vport_mac_list+0x453/0x4c0 [mlx5_core] Read of size 4 at addr ff1100013ffc8a12 by task kworker/u96:2/385 CPU: 12 UID: 0 PID: 385 Comm: kworker/u96:2 Not tainted 7.0.0-rc6+ #1 PREEMPT Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) Workqueue: mlx5_esw_wq esw_vport_change_handler [mlx5_core] Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x69/0xa0 print_report+0x176/0x4e4 kasan_report+0xc8/0x100 mlx5_query_nic_vport_mac_list+0x453/0x4c0 [mlx5_core] esw_update_vport_addr_list+0x2e3/0xda0 [mlx5_core] esw_vport_change_handle_locked+0xa1f/0x1060 [mlx5_core] esw_vport_change_handler+0x6a/0x90 [mlx5_core] process_one_work+0x87f/0x15e0 worker_thread+0x62b/0x1020 kthread+0x375/0x490 ret_from_fork+0x4dc/0x810 ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 </TASK> Fix by querying the vport's own HCA caps to size the buffer correctly. Refactor the function to allocate and return the MAC list internally, removing the caller's dependency on knowing the correct max.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53230
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53230/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53230)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53230"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53230/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53230"></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.