CVE-2026-63944
Is CVE-2026-63944 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:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: Bluetooth: hci_sync: fix UAF in hci_le_create_cis_sync hci_le_create_cis_sync() dereferences conn->conn_timeout after releasing both rcu_read_lock() and hci_dev_lock(hdev). The conn pointer was obtained from an RCU-protected iteration over hdev->conn_hash.list and is not valid once these locks are dropped. A concurrent disconnect can free the hci_conn between the unlock and the dereference, causing a use-after-free read. The cancellation mechanism in hci_conn_del() cannot prevent this because hci_le_create_cis_pending() queues hci_create_cis_sync with data=NULL: hci_cmd_sync_queue(hdev, hci_create_cis_sync, NULL, NULL); While hci_conn_del() dequeues with data=conn: hci_cmd_sync_dequeue(hdev, NULL, conn, NULL); Since NULL != conn, the lookup in _hci_cmd_sync_lookup_entry() never matches, and the pending work item is not cancelled. Fix this by saving conn->conn_timeout into a local variable while the locks are still held, so the stale conn pointer is never dereferenced after unlock. This is the same class of bug as the one fixed by commit 035c25007c9e ("Bluetooth: hci_sync: Fix UAF on le_read_features_complete") which addressed the identical pattern in a different function. This vulnerability was identified using 0sec.ai, an open-source automated security auditing platform (https://github.com/0sec-labs).
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63944)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63944"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63944/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-63944"></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 8.8) 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. 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.