CVE-2026-63913
Is CVE-2026-63913 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:L/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: conntrack: tcp: do not force CLOSE on invalid-seq RST without direction check An unintended behavior in the TCP conntrack state machine allows a connection to be forced into the CLOSE state using an RST packet with an invalid sequence number. Specifically, after a SYN packet is observed, an RST with an invalid SEQ can transition the conntrack entry to TCP_CONNTRACK_CLOSE, regardless of whether the RST corresponds to the expected reply direction. The relevant code path assumes the RST is a response to an outgoing SYN, but does not validate packet direction or ensure that a matching SYN was actually sent in the opposite direction. As a result, a crafted packet sequence consisting of a SYN followed by an invalid-sequence RST can prematurely terminate an active NAT entry. This makes connection teardown easier than intended. So, tighten the state transition logic to ensure that RST-triggered CLOSE transitions only occur when the RST is a valid response to a previously observed SYN in the correct direction.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63913)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63913"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63913/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-63913"></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 8.2) 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.