Skip to content

CVE-2026-53304

is CVE-2026-53304real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

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-667
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: scsi: sg: Resolve soft lockup issue when opening /dev/sgX The parameter def_reserved_size defines the default buffer size reserved for each Sg_fd and should be restricted to a range between 0 and 1,048,576 (see https://tldp.org/HOWTO/SCSI-Generic-HOWTO/proc.html). Although the function sg_proc_write_dressz enforces this limit, it is possible to bypass it by directly modifying the module parameter as shown below, which then causes a soft lockup: echo -1 > /sys/module/sg/parameters/def_reserved_size exec 4<> /dev/sg0 watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#5 stuck for 26 seconds! [bash:537] Modules loaded: CPU: 5 UID: 0 PID: 537 Command: bash, kernel version 6.19.0-rc3+ #134, PREEMPT disabled Hardware: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS version 1.16.1-2.fc37 dated 04/01/2014 ... Call Trace: sg_build_reserve+0x5c/0xa0 sg_add_sfp+0x168/0x270 sg_open+0x16e/0x340 chrdev_open+0xbe/0x230 do_dentry_open+0x175/0x480 vfs_open+0x34/0xf0 do_open+0x265/0x3d0 path_openat+0x110/0x290 do_filp_open+0xc3/0x170 do_sys_openat2+0x71/0xe0 __x64_sys_openat+0x6d/0xa0 do_syscall_64+0x62/0x310 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e The fix is to use module_param_cb to validate and reject invalid values assigned to def_reserved_size.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53304
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53304/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53304)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53304"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53304/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53304"></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.

    Same weakness: CWE-667.