CVE-2026-53395
Is CVE-2026-53395 real, 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:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfsd: fix dead ACL conflict guard in nfsd4_create nfsd4_create() steals create->cr_dpacl/cr_pacl into the local nfsd_attrs via the designated initializer, then immediately sets the source pointers to NULL. The subsequent conflict guard tests the already-nilled source fields, making it permanently dead code: if (create->cr_acl) { if (create->cr_dpacl || create->cr_pacl) /* always false */ When a client encodes both FATTR4_WORD0_ACL and FATTR4_WORD2_POSIX_{DEFAULT,ACCESS}_ACL in the same CREATE fattr bitmap, nfsd4_acl_to_attr() overwrites attrs.na_pacl/na_dpacl without releasing the originals, leaking two posix_acl slab objects per request. Repeated requests cause unbounded slab exhaustion. Fix by checking attrs.na_dpacl/na_pacl (the stolen values) instead of the nilled create->cr_dpacl/cr_pacl, matching the correct pattern already used in nfsd4_setattr().
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53395)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53395"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53395/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53395"></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 verdictsCurated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.
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.
- 0
This scores high on paper (CVSS 7.5) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 0%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It is reachable over the network with no authentication and no user interaction, which is the most dangerous profile. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.