CVE-2026-64432
Is CVE-2026-64432 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:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fs/ntfs3: validate Dirty Page Table capacity in log_replay copy_lcns In the analysis pass of $LogFile journal replay, log_replay() copies LCNs from each action log record into an existing Dirty Page Table (DPT) entry without bounding the destination index. A crafted NTFS image with DPT entry lcns_follow=1 and an action log record with lcns_follow=2 produces a kernel slab out-of-bounds write at mount time: BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in log_replay+0x654c/0xdb60 Write of size 8 at addr ffff8880095e1040 by task mount Two attacker-controlled fields can drive j+i past the allocated page_lcns[] array: 1. dp->lcns_follow (capacity) can be smaller than lrh->lcns_follow. 2. lrh->target_vcn may be smaller than dp->vcn, making the u64 subtraction wrap to a huge size_t. Validate target VCN delta and per-record LCN count against the DPT entry capacity, bail via the existing out: cleanup label with -EINVAL. This mirrors the bounds-check pattern added in commit b2bc7c44ed17 ("fs/ntfs3: Fix slab-out-of-bounds read in DeleteIndexEntryRoot") and commit 0ca0485e4b2e ("fs/ntfs3: validate rec->used in journal-replay file record check").
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64432)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64432"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64432/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64432"></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.