CVE-2026-64115
Is CVE-2026-64115 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
Officially disputed
The CVE record itself is disputed or rejected upstream — a strong candidate for a false positive in scanners. Confirm with a verdict.
Based on NVD record status
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vsock/vmci: fix UAF when peer resets connection during handshake vmci_transport_recv_connecting_server() returned err = 0 for a peer RST in its default switch arm: err = pkt->type == VMCI_TRANSPORT_PACKET_TYPE_RST ? 0 : -EINVAL; That made vmci_transport_recv_listen() skip vsock_remove_pending(), leaving the pending socket on the listener's pending_links with sk_state = TCP_CLOSE while destroy: still dropped the explicit reference taken before schedule_delayed_work(). One second later vsock_pending_work() observed is_pending=true and performed full cleanup: vsock_remove_pending() then the two trailing sock_put(sk) calls -- the first reached refcount 0 and __sk_freed the socket, and the second wrote into the freed object: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in refcount_warn_saturate Write of size 4 at addr ffff88800b1cac80 by task kworker Workqueue: events vsock_pending_work Treat peer RST like any other unexpected packet type (err = -EINVAL). All destroy: arms now return err < 0, so vmci_transport_recv_listen() removes pending from pending_links synchronously and vsock_pending_work() takes the is_pending=false / !rejected branch, dropping only its own work reference. This also closes the multi-packet race Sashiko reported on v2: pending is removed from the list before any subsequent packet can find it. The pre-existing sk_acceptq_removed() gap on the err < 0 path of vmci_transport_recv_listen() that Sashiko also noted is not introduced or changed by this patch. Tested on lts-6.12.79 with KASAN: 52/100 unpatched -> 0/100 patched.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64115)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64115"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64115/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64115"></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 8.8) 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.