CVE-2026-64003
Is CVE-2026-64003 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:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: core: Run queues for all non-SDEV_DEL devices from scsi_run_host_queues While a SCSI host is in a recovery state, scsi_mq_requeue_cmd() will not set the requeue list for a requeued command to be kicked in the future. The expectation is a call to scsi_run_host_queues() will kick all SCSI devices once the recovery state is cleared. However, scsi_run_host_queues() uses shost_for_each_device() which uses scsi_device_get() and so will ignore devices in a partially removed state like SDEV_CANCEL. But these devices may also have requeued requests, leaving their requests stuck from not being kicked and causing the removal process of the device to hang. scsi_run_host_queues() needs to run against more devices than the macro shost_for_each_device() allows. Instead of using the too limiting scsi_device_get() state checks, only ignore devices in SDEV_DEL state or when unable to acquire a reference. Attempt to run the queues for all other devices when scsi_run_host_queues() is called.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64003)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64003"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64003/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64003"></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 7.5) 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.