CVE-2026-53242
is CVE-2026-53242real, 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:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ALSA: PCM: Fix wait queue list corruption in snd_pcm_drain() on linked streams snd_pcm_drain() uses init_waitqueue_entry which does not clear entry.prev/next, and add_wait_queue with a conditional remove_wait_queue that is skipped when to_check is no longer in the group after concurrent UNLINK. The orphaned wait entry remains on the unlinked substream sleep queue. On the next drain iteration, add_wait_queue adds the entry to a new queue while still linked on the old one, corrupting both lists. A subsequent wake_up dereferences NULL at the func pointer (mapped from the spinlock at offset 0 of the misinterpreted wait_queue_head_t), causing a kernel panic. Replace init_waitqueue_entry/add_wait_queue/conditional remove_wait_queue with init_wait_entry/prepare_to_wait/ finish_wait. init_wait_entry clears prev/next via INIT_LIST_HEAD on each iteration and sets autoremove_wake_function which auto-removes the entry on wake-up. finish_wait safely handles both the already-removed and still-queued cases.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53242)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53242"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53242/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53242"></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.