CVE-2026-64176
Is CVE-2026-64176 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:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: wifi: iwlwifi: mvm: fix driver-set TX rates on old devices On old devices such as 7265D, rates are still encoded in version 1 format, which doesn't use the CCK/OFDM rate index (0-3/0-7) but rather their PLCP value (e.g. 10 for 1 Mbps CCK rate.) While introducing v3 rates, I changed the driver from internally handling v1 rates and converting to v2, to internally handling v3 and converting to v1 or v2 according to the firmware. I accordingly changed the code in iwl_mvm_mac80211_idx_to_hwrate() to no longer have different values for different APIs. This was correct. However, I later reverted this part of the change, because it was reported that I had broken beacon rates, causing a FW assert/crash. This caused TX_CMD rates to be set incorrectly, potentially causing a warning when reported back from the device as having been used. Fix this (hopefully correctly now) by handling beacon rates in the TX_CMD that's embedded in the beacon template command separately. Restore iwl_mvm_mac80211_idx_to_hwrate() to return only the rate index, not PLCP value, fixing the real TX_CMD.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64176)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64176"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64176/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64176"></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 8.1) 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. 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.