Skip to content

CVE-2026-64067

Is CVE-2026-64067 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
9.8 Critical
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
Not classified
CWE

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: netfs: Fix missing barriers when accessing stream->subrequests locklessly The list of subrequests attached to stream->subrequests is accessed without locks by netfs_collect_read_results() and netfs_collect_write_results(), and then they access subreq->flags without taking a barrier after getting the subreq pointer from the list. Relatedly, the functions that build the list don't use any sort of write barrier when constructing the list to make sure that the NETFS_SREQ_IN_PROGRESS flag is perceived to be set first if no lock is taken. Fix this by: (1) Add a new list_add_tail_release() function that uses a release barrier to set the pointer to the new member of the list. (2) Add a new list_first_entry_or_null_acquire() function that uses an acquire barrier to read the pointer to the first member in a list (or return NULL). (3) Use list_add_tail_release() when adding a subreq to ->subrequests. (4) Use list_first_entry_or_null_acquire() when initially accessing the front of the list (when an item is removed, the pointer to the new front iterm is obtained under the same lock).

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64067
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64067/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64067)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64067"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64067/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64067"></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 verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated 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
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    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.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.