CVE-2026-53396
Is CVE-2026-53396 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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfsd: fix posix_acl leak and ignored error in nfsd4_create_file nfsd4_create_file() has two bugs in its ACL handling: The return value of nfsd4_acl_to_attr() is silently discarded. When the NFSv4-to-POSIX ACL conversion fails (e.g., -EINVAL for unsupported ACE types), the file is created without any ACL and the client receives NFS4_OK. This violates RFC 7530/8881 which require the server to reject unsupported attributes on CREATE. When start_creating() fails after ACL attributes have been populated in attrs (either via nfsd4_acl_to_attr or via ownership transfer from open->op_dpacl/op_pacl), the function jumps to out_write which skips nfsd_attrs_free(). The posix_acl allocations are leaked. A client can trigger this repeatedly with OPEN(CREATE), ACL attributes, and an invalid filename (e.g., longer than NAME_MAX). Fix both by capturing the nfsd4_acl_to_attr() return value and by changing the early error paths to jump to out instead of out_write. Initialize child to ERR_PTR(-EINVAL) so that end_creating() is safe to call even if start_creating() was never reached.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53396)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53396"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53396/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53396"></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 7.1) 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. 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.