CVE-2026-64398
Is CVE-2026-64398 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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ksmbd: add a permission check for FSCTL_SET_ZERO_DATA FSCTL_SET_ZERO_DATA in smb2_ioctl() destroys file data via ksmbd_vfs_zero_data() -> vfs_fallocate(PUNCH_HOLE/ZERO_RANGE) after checking only the share-level KSMBD_TREE_CONN_FLAG_WRITABLE, with no per-handle access check. A handle opened with only FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES still yields an FMODE_WRITE filp (FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES is part of FILE_WRITE_DESIRE_ACCESS_LE, so smb2_create_open_flags() opens it O_WRONLY), so the vfs_fallocate FMODE_WRITE check does not stop it; only the missing fp->daccess gate would. Reproduced on mainline 7.1-rc7 with KASAN by an authenticated SMB client: a FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES-only handle zeroed 4096 bytes of file data it had no FILE_WRITE_DATA right to (6/6; a FILE_READ_DATA-only handle was correctly denied). This is the unfixed sibling of commit cc57232cae23 ("ksmbd: fix FSCTL permission bypass by adding a permission check for FSCTL_SET_SPARSE"). Because SET_ZERO_DATA writes data (not an attribute), require FILE_WRITE_DATA.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64398)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64398"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64398/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64398"></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.