CVE-2026-62424
Is CVE-2026-62424 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
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.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
[This CNA information record relates to multiple CVEs; the text explains which aspects/vulnerabilities correspond to which CVE.] The directory and Rock Ridge / SUSP walk in libfsimage's iso9660 driver derives several lengths directly from attacker-controlled on-disk fields without validating them: * The directory loop itself assumes a good record length. This is CVE-2026-42494. * The calculation of the System Use area may underflow. This is CVE-2026-42495. * The Rock Ridge extension loop assumes a good (inner) record length. This is CVE-2026-62423. * The Rock Ridge NM record processing assumes a good entry length. This is CVE-2026-62424. * The Rock Ridge CE record processing assumes a good size and offset. This is CVE-2026-62425.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-62424)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-62424"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-62424/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-62424"></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 verdictsNo 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
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-130.
- CVE-2025-14847HIGH 7.5KEVEPSS 83%
Mismatched length fields in Zlib compressed protocol headers may allow a read of uninitialized heap memory by an unauthenticated client. This issue affects all MongoDB Server v7.0 prior to 7.0.28 versions, MongoDB Server v8.0 versions prior to 8.0.17, MongoDB Server v8.2 versions prior to 8.2.3, MongoDB Server v6.0 versions prior to 6.0.27, MongoDB Server v5.0 versions prior to 5.0.32, MongoDB Server v4.4 versions prior to 4.4.30, MongoDB Server v4.2 versions greater than or equal to 4.2.0, MongoDB Server v4.0 versions greater than or equal to 4.0.0, and MongoDB Server v3.6 versions greater than or equal to 3.6.0.
- CVE-2026-33846HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 1%
A heap buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the DTLS handshake fragment reassembly logic of GnuTLS. The issue arises in merge_handshake_packet() where incoming handshake fragments are matched and merged based solely on handshake type, without validating that the message_length field remains consistent across all fragments of the same logical message. An attacker can exploit this by sending crafted DTLS fragments with conflicting message_length values, causing the implementation to allocate a buffer based on a smaller initial fragment and subsequently write beyond its bounds using larger, inconsistent fragments. Because the merge operation does not enforce proper bounds checking against the allocated buffer size, this results in an out-of-bounds write on the heap. The vulnerability is remotely exploitable without authentication via the DTLS handshake path and can lead to application crashes or potential memory corruption.