CVE-2026-64140
Is CVE-2026-64140 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: ksmbd: fix null pointer dereference in proc_show_files() When a SMB2 client opens a file with a durable v2 handle and then issues SMB2 SESSION_LOGOFF, session_fd_check() clears fp->tcon = NULL on the reconnectable file pointer but leaves the fp registered in global_ft.idr until the durable scavenger fires (up to fp->durable_timeout seconds later). During that window any read of /proc/fs/ksmbd/files (mode 0400) panics the kernel because proc_show_files() walks global_ft.idr and unconditionally dereferences fp->tcon->id with no NULL guard. Reproducer requires only a successful SMB2 SESSION_SETUP and a share configured with 'durable handles = yes'. KASAN report on mainline 70390501d194: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007] RIP: 0010:proc_show_files+0x118/0x740 Call Trace: proc_show_files+0x118/0x740 seq_read_iter+0x4ef/0xe10 proc_reg_read_iter+0x1b7/0x280 ... Guard the dereference. A durable-disconnected fp legitimately has no tcon; report its tree id as 0 rather than oopsing.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64140)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64140"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64140/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64140"></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.