CVE-2026-66754
Is CVE-2026-66754 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.
public exploits
links to sources — we don’t host codeUnverified proof-of-concept code has been published. It may or may not be functional — assess before relying on it.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Low signal — verdict needed
Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Rouille 0.1.6 through 3.6.2 contains a reachable assertion vulnerability in the Request::remove_prefix function that allows remote unauthenticated attackers to crash the server by sending a crafted percent-encoded URL. Attackers can send a request whose decoded path matches a configured prefix while the raw percent-encoded path does not, causing the assert! to fail and triggering either a 500 error or full process termination depending on the panic configuration.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-66754)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-66754"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-66754/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-66754"></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
Proof-of-concept code is on GitHub. Exploitation has been demonstrated, though it may need adapting to a real target.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-617.
- CVE-2026-27135HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 1%
nghttp2 is an implementation of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2 in C. Prior to version 1.68.1, the nghttp2 library stops reading the incoming data when user facing public API `nghttp2_session_terminate_session` or `nghttp2_session_terminate_session2` is called by the application. They might be called internally by the library when it detects the situation that is subject to connection error. Due to the missing internal state validation, the library keeps reading the rest of the data after one of those APIs is called. Then receiving a malformed frame that causes FRAME_SIZE_ERROR causes assertion failure. nghttp2 v1.68.1 adds missing state validation to avoid assertion failure. No known workarounds are available.
- CVE-2022-35205MED 5.5EPSS 0%
An issue was discovered in Binutils readelf 2.38.50, reachable assertion failure in function display_debug_names allows attackers to cause a denial of service.
- CVE-2026-4046HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 0%
The iconv() function in the GNU C Library versions 2.43 and earlier may crash due to an assertion failure when converting inputs from the IBM1390 or IBM1399 character sets, which may be used to remotely crash an application. This vulnerability can be trivially mitigated by removing the IBM1390 and IBM1399 character sets from systems that do not need them.