Skip to content

CVE-2026-64524

Is CVE-2026-64524 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
7.7 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
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:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/hyperv: validate resolution_count and fix WIN8 fallback A SYNTHVID_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE with resolution_count > 64 walks past the supported_resolution[SYNTHVID_MAX_RESOLUTION_COUNT] array in the parse loop. Bound resolution_count against the array size, folded into the existing zero-check. When the WIN10 resolution probe fails, the caller in hyperv_connect_vsp() left hv->screen_*_max / preferred_* unpopulated, which sets mode_config.max_width / max_height to 0 and makes drm_internal_framebuffer_create() reject every userspace framebuffer with -EINVAL. The pre-WIN10 branch had the same gap for preferred_width / preferred_height. Use a single post-probe fallback guarded by screen_width_max == 0 so both paths converge on the WIN8 defaults.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64524
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64524/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64524)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64524"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64524/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64524"></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

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.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.