CVE-2026-64422
Is CVE-2026-64422 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:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: ipv4: bound TCP reordering sysctl writes and MTU probe sizes Reject invalid `net.ipv4.tcp_reordering` values before they reach TCP socket state. The sysctl is stored as an `int` but copied into the `u32` `tp->reordering` field for new sockets, so negative writes wrap to large values. With `tcp_mtu_probing=2`, the wrapped value can overflow the `tcp_mtu_probe()` size calculation and drive the MTU probing path into an out-of-bounds read. Route `tcp_reordering` writes through `proc_dointvec_minmax()` and require it to be at least 1. Also require `tcp_max_reordering` to be at least 1 so the configured maximum cannot become negative either. When registering the table for a non-init network namespace, relocate `extra2` pointers that refer into `init_net.ipv4` so the `tcp_reordering` upper bound follows that namespace's `tcp_max_reordering`. Harden `tcp_mtu_probe()` itself by computing `size_needed` as `u64`. This keeps the send queue and window checks from being bypassed through signed integer overflow.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64422)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64422"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64422/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64422"></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 verdictsNo 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.
No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.