CVE-2026-63869
Is CVE-2026-63869 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:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: wifi: mac80211: limit injected antenna index in ieee80211_parse_tx_radiotap When parsing the radiotap header of an injected frame, ieee80211_parse_tx_radiotap() uses the IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_ANTENNA value directly as a shift count: info->control.antennas |= BIT(*iterator.this_arg); *iterator.this_arg is an 8-bit value taken straight from the frame supplied by userspace, so BIT() can be asked to shift by up to 255. That is undefined behaviour on the unsigned long and is reported by UBSAN: UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in net/mac80211/tx.c:2174:30 shift exponent 235 is too large for 64-bit type 'unsigned long' Call Trace: ieee80211_parse_tx_radiotap+0xadb/0x1950 net/mac80211/tx.c:2174 ieee80211_monitor_start_xmit+0xb1f/0x1250 net/mac80211/tx.c:2451 ... packet_sendmsg+0x3eb6/0x50f0 net/packet/af_packet.c:3109 info->control.antennas is a 2-bit bitmap (u8 antennas:2), so only antenna indices 0 and 1 can ever be represented. Ignore any larger value instead of shifting out of bounds.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63869)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63869"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63869/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-63869"></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 7.6) 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.