CVE-2026-63858
Is CVE-2026-63858 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:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: nf_tables: add hook transactions for device deletions Restore the flag that indicates that the hook is going away, ie. NFT_HOOK_REMOVE, but add a new transaction object to track deletion of hooks without altering the basechain/flowtable hook_list during the preparation phase. The existing approach that moves the hook from the basechain/flowtable hook_list to transaction hook_list breaks netlink dump path readers of this RCU-protected list. It should be possible use an array for nft_trans_hook to store the deleted hooks to compact the representation but I am not expecting many hook object, specially now that wildcard support for devices is in place. Note that the nft_trans_chain_hooks() list contains a list of struct nft_trans_hook objects for DELCHAIN and DELFLOWTABLE commands, while this list stores struct nft_hook objects for NEWCHAIN and NEWFLOWTABLE. Note that new commands can be updated to use nft_trans_hook for consistency. This patch also adapts the event notification path to deal with the list of hook transactions.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63858)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63858"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63858/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-63858"></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 7.8) 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.