Skip to content

CVE-2026-63893

Is CVE-2026-63893 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
8.1 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
Not classified
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

Officially disputed

The CVE record itself is disputed or rejected upstream — a strong candidate for a false positive in scanners. Confirm with a verdict.

Based on NVD record status

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: thunderbolt: property: Reject u32 wrap in tb_property_entry_valid() entry->value is u32 and entry->length is u16; the sum is performed in u32 and wraps. A malicious XDomain peer can pick value = 0xffffff00, length = 0x100 so the sum 0x100000000 wraps to 0 and passes the > block_len check. tb_property_parse() then passes entry->value to parse_dwdata() as a dword offset into the property block, reading attacker-directed memory far past the allocation. For TEXT-typed entries with the "deviceid" or "vendorid" keys this lands in xd->device_name / xd->vendor_name and is readable back via the per-XDomain device_name / vendor_name sysfs attributes; the leak is NUL-bounded (kstrdup() stops at the first zero byte) and untargeted (the attacker picks a delta, not an absolute address). DATA-typed entries are parsed into property->value.data but not generically surfaced to userspace. Use check_add_overflow() so a wrapped sum is rejected.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-63893
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63893/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63893)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63893"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63893/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-63893"></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

Curated 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
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    This scores high on paper (CVSS 8.1) 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.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.