Skip to content

CVE-2026-64394

Is CVE-2026-64394 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
8.8 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.5%
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:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ksmbd: add a WRITE_DAC/WRITE_OWNER check to SMB2 SET_INFO SECURITY commit cc57232cae23 ("ksmbd: fix FSCTL permission bypass by adding a permission check for FSCTL_SET_SPARSE") added a fp->daccess gate to fsctl_set_sparse and noted that "similar handle-level checks exist in other functions but are missing here." The SMB2 SET_INFO SECURITY arm is one of the missing ones, and the most security-relevant: smb2_set_info_sec() calls set_info_sec() with no per-handle access check. set_info_sec() (fs/smb/server/smbacl.c) re-permissions the file: it rewrites owner/group/mode via notify_change(), rewrites the POSIX ACL via set_posix_acl(), and on KSMBD_SHARE_FLAG_ACL_XATTR shares removes and rewrites the Windows security descriptor via ksmbd_vfs_set_sd_xattr(). Every other persistent-mutation arm of the sibling handler smb2_set_info_file() checks fp->daccess first (FILE_WRITE_DATA / FILE_DELETE / FILE_WRITE_EA / FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES); the SECURITY arm — which mutates the access control itself — is the only one with no gate. A client can therefore open a handle with FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES only (no FILE_WRITE_DAC / FILE_WRITE_OWNER) and use SMB2_SET_INFO with InfoType SMB2_O_INFO_SECURITY to rewrite the file's DACL and owner, granting itself access the handle's daccess never carried. Unlike the FSCTL data arms this is a metadata/xattr operation, so there is no FMODE_WRITE VFS backstop — the missing fp->daccess check is the entire gate. Setting a security descriptor is the WRITE_DAC / WRITE_OWNER operation, so require at least one of those on the handle before re-permissioning the file. -EACCES is mapped to STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED by smb2_set_info().

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64394
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64394/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64394)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64394"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64394/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64394"></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 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. 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.