CVE-2026-64045
Is CVE-2026-64045 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:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ovpn: tcp - use cached peer pointer in ovpn_tcp_close() ovpn_tcp_close() loads the ovpn_socket via rcu_dereference_sk_user_data() under rcu_read_lock(), takes a reference on sock->peer, caches the peer pointer in a local, and drops the read lock. It then passes sock->peer (rather than the cached local) to ovpn_peer_del(), re-dereferencing the ovpn_socket after the RCU read section has ended. Unlike ovpn_tcp_sendmsg(), which uses the same "load under RCU, use after unlock" pattern but is protected by lock_sock() held across the function, ovpn_tcp_close() runs without the socket lock: inet_release() invokes sk_prot->close() without taking lock_sock first. ovpn_socket_release() can therefore complete its kref_put -> detach -> synchronize_rcu -> kfree(sock) sequence concurrently, in the window after ovpn_tcp_close() drops rcu_read_lock() but before it dereferences sock->peer. The synchronize_rcu() in ovpn_socket_release() protects readers that use the dereferenced pointer inside the RCU read section, not those that escape the pointer to a local and use it afterwards. A reproducer follows the pattern of commit 94560267d6c4 ("ovpn: tcp - don't deref NULL sk_socket member after tcp_close()"): trigger a peer removal (keepalive expiration or netlink OVPN_CMD_DEL_PEER) at the same moment userspace closes the TCP fd. That commit fixed the detach-side of the same race window; this one fixes the close-side at a different victim. Tighten the entry block to read sock->peer exactly once into the cached peer local, and route all subsequent uses (the hold check, the ovpn_peer_del() call, and the prot->close() invocation) through that local. sock->peer is only ever written once in ovpn_socket_new() under lock_sock(), before rcu_assign_sk_user_data() publishes the ovpn_socket, and is never reassigned afterwards - but the previous multi-read pattern made that invariant implicit rather than explicit. The same multi-read shape exists in ovpn_tcp_recvmsg(), ovpn_tcp_sendmsg(), ovpn_tcp_data_ready() and ovpn_tcp_write_space(); those will be cleaned up via a dedicated helper in a follow-up net-next series.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64045)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64045"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64045/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64045"></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 8.4) 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.