CVE-2026-63911
Is CVE-2026-63911 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: xfrm: iptfs: reset runtime state when cloning SAs iptfs_clone_state() clones the IPTFS mode data with kmemdup(). This copies runtime objects which must not be shared with the original SA, including the embedded sk_buff_head, hrtimers, spinlock, and in-flight reassembly/reorder state. If xfrm_state_migrate() fails after clone_state() but before the later init_state() call has reinitialized those fields, the cloned state can be destroyed by xfrm_state_gc_task() with list and timer state copied from the original SA. With queued packets this lets the clone splice and free skbs owned by the original IPTFS queue, leading to use-after-free and double-free reports in iptfs_destroy_state() and skb release paths. Reinitialize the clone's runtime state before publishing it through x->mode_data. Because clone_state() now publishes a destroyable mode_data object before init_state(), take the mode callback module reference there. Avoid taking it again from __iptfs_init_state() for the same object.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63911)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63911"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63911/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-63911"></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.