CVE-2026-64037
Is CVE-2026-64037 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: wifi: iwlwifi: mld: fix TSO segmentation explosion when AMSDU is disabled When the TLC notification disables AMSDU for a TID, the MLD driver sets max_tid_amsdu_len to the sentinel value 1. The TSO segmentation path in iwl_mld_tx_tso_segment() checks for zero but not for this sentinel, allowing it to reach the num_subframes calculation: num_subframes = (max_tid_amsdu_len + pad) / (subf_len + pad) = (1 + 2) / (1534 + 2) = 0 This zero propagates to iwl_tx_tso_segment() which sets: gso_size = num_subframes * mss = 0 Calling skb_gso_segment() with gso_size=0 creates over 32000 tiny segments from a single GSO skb. This floods the TX ring with ~1024 micro-frames (the rest are purged), creating a massive burst of TX completion events that can lead to memory corruption and a subsequent use-after-free in TCP's retransmit queue (refcount underflow in tcp_shifted_skb, NULL deref in tcp_rack_detect_loss). The MVM driver is immune because it checks mvmsta->amsdu_enabled before reaching the num_subframes calculation. The MLD driver has no equivalent bitmap check and relies solely on max_tid_amsdu_len, which does not catch the sentinel value. Fix this by detecting the sentinel value (max_tid_amsdu_len == 1) at the existing check and falling back to non-AMSDU TSO segmentation. Also add a WARN_ON_ONCE guard after the num_subframes division as defense-in-depth to catch any future code paths that produce zero through a different mechanism.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64037)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64037"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64037/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64037"></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.