CVE-2026-64007
Is CVE-2026-64007 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:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: synproxy: refresh tcphdr after skb_ensure_writable synproxy_tstamp_adjust() rewrites the TCP timestamp option in place and then patches the TCP checksum via inet_proto_csum_replace4() on the caller-supplied tcphdr pointer. Both ipv4_synproxy_hook() and ipv6_synproxy_hook() obtain that pointer with skb_header_pointer() before calling in, so it may either alias skb->head directly or point at the caller's on-stack _tcph buffer. Between obtaining the pointer and using it, the function calls skb_ensure_writable(skb, optend), which on a cloned or non-linear skb invokes pskb_expand_head() and frees the old skb->head. After that point the cached th is stale: caller (ipv[46]_synproxy_hook) th = skb_header_pointer(skb, ..., &_tcph) synproxy_tstamp_adjust(skb, protoff, th, ...) skb_ensure_writable(skb, optend) pskb_expand_head() /* kfree(old skb->head) */ ... inet_proto_csum_replace4(&th->check, ...) /* writes into freed head, or into the caller's stack copy leaving the on-wire checksum stale */ The option bytes are written through skb->data and are fine; only the checksum update goes through th and so lands in the wrong place. The result is either a write into freed slab memory or a packet leaving with a checksum that does not match its payload. Fix by re-deriving th from skb->data + protoff immediately after skb_ensure_writable() succeeds, so the subsequent checksum update targets the linear, writable header.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64007)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64007"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64007/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64007"></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 9.8) 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 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.