CVE-2026-63909
Is CVE-2026-63909 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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ksmbd: OOB read regression in smb_check_perm_dacl() ACE-walk loops Commit d07b26f39246 ("ksmbd: require minimum ACE size in smb_check_perm_dacl()") introduced a transposed bounds check: if (offsetof(struct smb_ace, sid) + aces_size < CIFS_SID_BASE_SIZE) Since offsetof(..sid) is 8 and CIFS_SID_BASE_SIZE is 8, this evaluates to `aces_size < 0`. Because `aces_size` is always non-negative, this check becomes dead code and never breaks the loop. Worse, that commit removed the old 4-byte guard, meaning the loop now reads `ace->size` (offset 2) even when `aces_size` is 0-3 bytes. This re-opens a 2-byte heap out-of-bounds (OOB) read past the pntsd allocation during subsequent SMB2_CREATE operations. Fix this by properly transposing the comparison to require at least 16 bytes (8-byte offset + 8-byte SID base), matching the correct form used in smb_inherit_dacl().
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63909)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63909"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63909/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-63909"></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 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.