Skip to content

CVE-2026-64158

Is CVE-2026-64158 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
7.3 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.1%
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:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfs: Fix write streaming disablement if fd open O_RDWR In netfs_perform_write(), "write streaming" (the caching of dirty data in dirty but !uptodate folios) is performed to avoid the need to read data that is just going to get immediately overwritten. However, this is/will be disabled in three circumstances: if the fd is open O_RDWR, if fscache is in use (as we need to round out the blocks for DIO) or if content encryption is enabled (again for rounding out purposes). The idea behind disabling it if the fd is open O_RDWR is that we'd need to flush the write-streaming page before we could read the data, particularly through mmap. But netfs now fills in the gaps if ->read_folio() is called on the page, so that is unnecessary. Further, this doesn't actually work if a separate fd is open for reading. Fix this by removing the check for O_RDWR, thereby allowing streaming writes even when we might read. This caused a number of problems with the generic/522 xfstest, but those are now fixed.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64158
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64158/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64158)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64158"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64158/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64158"></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 7.3) 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.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.