CVE-2026-53273
is CVE-2026-53273real, 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: tee: optee: prevent use-after-free when the client exits before the supplicant Commit 70b0d6b0a199 ("tee: optee: Fix supplicant wait loop") made the client wait as killable so it can be interrupted during shutdown or after a supplicant crash. This changes the original lifetime expectations: the client task can now terminate while the supplicant is still processing its request. If the client exits first it removes the request from its queue and kfree()s it, while the request ID remains in supp->idr. A subsequent lookup on the supplicant path then dereferences freed memory, leading to a use-after-free. Serialise access to the request with supp->mutex: * Hold supp->mutex in optee_supp_recv() and optee_supp_send() while looking up and touching the request. * Let optee_supp_thrd_req() notice that the client has terminated and signal optee_supp_send() accordingly. With these changes the request cannot be freed while the supplicant still has a reference, eliminating the race.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53273)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53273"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53273/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53273"></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.