Skip to content

CVE-2026-53243

Is CVE-2026-53243 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

☆ Watch

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
5.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.1%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-908
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rseq: Fix using an uninitialized stack variable in rseq_exit_user_update() There is an bug in which an uninitialized stack variable is used in rseq_exit_user_update() as reported by syzbot: BUG: KMSAN: kernel-infoleak in rseq_set_ids_get_csaddr include/linux/rseq_entry.h:502 [inline] The local variable: struct rseq_ids ids = { .cpu_id = task_cpu(t), .mm_cid = task_mm_cid(t), .node_id = cpu_to_node(ids.cpu_id), }; According to the C standard, the evaluation order of expressions in an initializer list is indeterminately sequenced. The compiler (Clang, in this KMSAN build) evaluates `cpu_to_node(ids.cpu_id)` *before* `ids.cpu_id` is initialized with `task_cpu(t)`. This is fixed by moving the assignment of ids.node_id outside the structure initialization.

References

NVD MITRE CVE.org

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53243
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53243/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53243)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53243"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53243/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53243"></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?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
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.

    Related CVEs

    Same weakness: CWE-908.