CVE-2026-64057
Is CVE-2026-64057 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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: afs: Fix the locking used by afs_get_link() The afs filesystem in the kernel doesn't do locking correctly for symbolic links. There are a number of problems: (1) It doesn't do any locking around afs_read_single() to prevent races between multiple ->get_link() calls, thereby allowing the possibility of leaks. (2) It doesn't use RCU barriering when accessing the buffer pointers during RCU pathwalk. (3) It can race with another thread updating the contents of the symlink if a third party updated it on the server. Fix this by the following means: (0) Move symlink handling into its own file as this makes it more complicated. (1) Take the validate_lock around afs_read_single() to prevent races between multiple ->get_link() calls. (2) Keep a separate copy of the symlink contents with an rcu_head. This is always going to be a lot smaller than a page, so it can be kmalloc'd and save quite a bit of memory. It also needs a refcount for non-RCU pathwalk. (3) Split the symlink read and write-to-cache routines in afs from those for directories. (4) Discard the I/O buffer as soon as the write-to-cache completes as this is a full page (plus a folio_queue). (5) If there's no cache, discard the I/O buffer immediately after reading and copying if there is no cache.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64057)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64057"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64057/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64057"></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 7.8) 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 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.