CVE-2026-53402
Is CVE-2026-53402 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:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fbdev: fbcon: fix out-of-bounds read in err_out of fbcon_do_set_font() When fbcon_do_set_font() fails (e.g., due to a memory allocation failure inside vc_resize() under heavy memory pressure), it jumps to the `err_out` label to roll back the console state. However, the current rollback logic forgets to restore the `hi_font` state, leading to a severe state machine corruption. Earlier in the function, `set_vc_hi_font()` might be called to change `vc->vc_hi_font_mask` and mutate the screen buffer. If `vc_resize()` subsequently fails, the `err_out` path restores `vc_font.charcount` but entirely skips rolling back the `vc_hi_font_mask` and the screen buffer. This mismatch leaves the terminal in a desynchronized state. Because `vc_hi_font_mask` remains set, the VT subsystem will still accept character indices greater than 255 from userspace and write them to the screen buffer. Subsequent rendering calls (e.g., `fbcon_putcs()`) will then use these inflated indices to access the reverted, 256-character font array, leading to a deterministic out-of-bounds read and potential kernel memory disclosure. Fix this by adding the missing rollback logic for the `hi_font` mask and screen buffer in the error path.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53402)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53402"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53402/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53402"></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. It needs local access, so it reads more as a privilege-escalation or post-access risk than a remote one. 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.