CVE-2026-64125
Is CVE-2026-64125 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:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: bcmgenet: keep RBUF EEE/PM disabled Setting RBUF_EEE_EN | RBUF_PM_EN in RBUF_ENERGY_CTRL breaks the RX path on GENET hardware once MAC EEE becomes active. RX traffic stops flowing while the link stays up and the usual descriptor/RX error counters remain quiet. In that state the MAC still accepts frames (rbuf_ovflow_cnt keeps climbing) but RBUF no longer forwards them to DMA, so rx_packets is no longer incremented at the netdev level. On some boards the corruption ends up as a paging fault in skb_release_data via bcmgenet_rx_poll on an LPI exit. Reproduced on Pi 4B (BCM2711 + BCM54213PE) and confirmed by Florian Fainelli on an internal Broadcom 4908-family board with the same crash signature. RBUF_PM_EN is not publicly documented. This shows up more often now that phy_support_eee() enables EEE by default, but it also affects older kernels as soon as TX LPI is turned on via ethtool, so it is not specific to recent changes. Always clear RBUF_EEE_EN | RBUF_PM_EN in bcmgenet_eee_enable_set so the bits stay off across resets. UMAC and TBUF setup is left alone so TX-side EEE keeps working.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64125)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64125"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64125/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64125"></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 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.