CVE-2026-63872
Is CVE-2026-63872 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:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: esp: fix page frag reference leak on skb_to_sgvec failure In esp_output_tail(), when esp->inplace is false, the old skb page frags are replaced with a new page from the xfrm page_frag cache. The source scatterlist (sg) is built from the old frags before the replacement, and esp_ssg_unref() is responsible for releasing the old page references after the crypto operation completes. However, if the second skb_to_sgvec() call (which builds the destination scatterlist from the new page) fails, the code jumps to error_free which only calls kfree(tmp). The old page frag references captured in the source scatterlist are never released: 1. sg[] is built from old frags via skb_to_sgvec() (no extra get_page) 2. nr_frags is set to 1 and frag[0] is replaced with the new page 3. Second skb_to_sgvec() fails -> goto error_free 4. kfree(tmp) frees the sg[] memory but old frags are not unref'd 5. kfree_skb() only releases frag[0] (the new page), not the old ones Fix this by adding a bool parameter to esp_ssg_unref() that, when true, unconditionally unrefs the source scatterlist frags without checking req->src and req->dst, since those fields are not yet initialized by aead_request_set_crypt() at the point of the error. Existing callers pass false to preserve the original behavior. The same issue exists in both esp4 and esp6 as the code is identical.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63872)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63872"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63872/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-63872"></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 7.5) 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 is reachable over the network with no authentication and no user interaction, which is the most dangerous profile. 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.