Skip to content

CVE-2026-53345

Is CVE-2026-53345 real, 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.
n/a
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-401
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.

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: KVM: Don't WARN if memory is dirtied without a vCPU when the VM is dying When marking a page dirty, complain about not having a running/loaded vCPU if and only if the VM is still alive, i.e. its refcount is non-zero. This will allow fixing a memory leak for x86 SEV-ES guests without hitting what is effectively a false positive on the WARN. For some SEV-ES VM-Exits, KVM keeps a writable mapping of a guest page across an exit to userspace, and typically unmaps the page on the next KVM_RUN. But if userspace never calls KVM_RUN after such an exit, then KVM needs to unmap the page when the vCPU is destroyed, which in turn triggers the WARN about not having a running vCPU. Alternatively, SEV-ES could temporarily load the vCPU to suppress the WARN, as is done in nested_vmx_free_vcpu() (but for completely unrelated reasons; suppressing WARN from nested_put_vmcs12_pages() is pure happenstance). But loading a vCPU during destruction is gross (ideally nVMX code would be cleaned up), risks complicating the SEV-ES code (KVM would need to ensure the temporarily load()+put() only runs when the vCPU isn't already loaded), and is ultimately pointless. The motivation for the WARN is to guard against KVM dirtying guest memory without pushing the corresponding GFN to the active vCPU's dirty ring, e.g. to ensure userspace doesn't miss a dirty page. But for the VM's refcount to reach zero, there can't be _any_ userspace mappings to the dirty ring, as mapping the dirty ring requires doing mmap() on the vCPU FD. I.e. if userspace had a valid mapping for the dirty ring, then the vCPU file and thus the owning VM would still be alive. And so since userspace can't possibly reach the dirty ring, whether or not KVM technically "misses" a push to the dirty ring is irrelevant.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53345
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53345/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53345)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53345"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53345/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53345"></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.

    Same weakness: CWE-401.