Skip to content

CVE-2026-59147

Out-of-bounds Read: Is CVE-2026-59147 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
9.8 Critical
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read
CWE

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:H/I:H/A:H

Data::DisjointSet::Shared versions before 0.02 for Perl allow out-of-bounds reads and writes via an unvalidated parent index in dsu_find. The attach-time validator dsu_validate_header checks the header scalars and region layout against the file size, but does not validate the array contents it then trusts. dsu_find walks and path-compresses parent[x] with x a raw file-stored index never bounded against the node count, so both the read and the compression write-back land out of bounds. A local peer that can write the backing file can leave the header valid while poisoning the parent array, so the next find or union both reads and writes through an out-of-bounds parent index, corrupting memory or crashing the process.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-59147
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-59147/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-59147)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-59147"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-59147/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-59147"></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-125 · Out-of-bounds Read.