CVE-2026-64048
Is CVE-2026-64048 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: net/smc: reject CHID-0 ACCEPT that matches an empty ism_dev slot On the SMC-D client, slot 0 of ini->ism_dev[]/ini->ism_chid[] is reserved for an SMC-Dv1 device. smc_find_ism_v2_device_clnt() populates V2 entries starting at index 1, so when no V1 device is selected slot 0 is left in its kzalloc()'ed state with ism_dev[0] == NULL and ism_chid[0] == 0. smc_v2_determine_accepted_chid() then matches the peer's CHID against the array starting from index 0 using the CHID alone. A malicious peer replying to a SMC-Dv2-only proposal with d1.chid == 0 matches the empty slot, ini->ism_selected becomes 0, and the subsequent ism_dev[0]->lgr_lock dereference in smc_conn_create() faults at offsetof(struct smcd_dev, lgr_lock) == 0x68: BUG: KASAN: null-ptr-deref in _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x79/0xe0 Write of size 4 at addr 0000000000000068 by task exploit/144 Call Trace: _raw_spin_lock_bh smc_conn_create (net/smc/smc_core.c:1997) __smc_connect (net/smc/af_smc.c:1447) smc_connect (net/smc/af_smc.c:1720) __sys_connect __x64_sys_connect do_syscall_64 Require ism_dev[i] to be non-NULL before accepting a CHID match.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64048)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64048"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64048/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64048"></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.