CVE-2026-63918
Is CVE-2026-63918 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: l2tp: use refcount_inc_not_zero in l2tp_session_get_by_ifname A reader in l2tp_session_get_by_ifname() can return a pointer to a session whose refcount has reached zero. The getter takes its reference with plain refcount_inc(), but every other session getter in the same file (l2tp_v2_session_get, l2tp_v3_session_get, and the corresponding _get_next variants) uses refcount_inc_not_zero() because the IDR/RCU lookup can race with refcount_dec_and_test() -> l2tp_session_free() -> kfree_rcu(). The ifname getter is the only outlier; the inconsistency was raised on-list after 979c017803c4 ("l2tp: use list_del_rcu in l2tp_session_unhash"). A reader inside rcu_read_lock_bh() that matches session->ifname can be preempted between the strcmp() and the refcount_inc(). If the last reference drops on another CPU in that window, the reader's refcount_inc() runs on a counter that has reached zero. refcount_t catches the addition-on-zero, prints "refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free", saturates the counter, and returns the saturated pointer to the caller. Session memory is held live by the in-flight RCU read section, but the kfree_rcu() callback queued from l2tp_session_free() will free it once the grace period closes; a caller that dereferences the returned session past that point hits a slab-use-after-free. On PREEMPT_RT local_bh_disable() is a per-CPU sleeping lock and the preemption window is real; on stock PREEMPT kernels local_bh_disable() is a preempt_count increment that closes the cross-CPU race in practice (see below). Use refcount_inc_not_zero() and continue the list walk on failure, matching the other session getters in the file. The ifname getter is the only session getter in net/l2tp/ that still uses the bare refcount_inc() pattern; this change restores file-internal consistency. The success path is unchanged.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63918)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63918"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63918/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-63918"></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.