GHSA-xx5w-cvp6-jv83 CVE-2026-34987 RUSTSEC-2026-0095
Wasmtime with Winch compiler backend on aarch64 may allow a sandbox-escaping memory access
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.28%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 20.31% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
36.0.7- Upgrade wasmtime to this version or later
Description
Impact
Wasmtime with its Winch (baseline) non-default compiler backend may allow properly constructed guest Wasm to access host memory outside of its linear-memory sandbox.
This vulnerability requires use of the Winch compiler (-Ccompiler=winch). By default, Wasmtime uses its Cranelift backend, not Winch. With Winch, the same incorrect assumption is present in theory on both aarch64 and x86-64. The aarch64 case has an observed-working proof of concept, while the x86-64 case is theoretical and may not be reachable in practice.
This Winch compiler bug can allow the Wasm guest to access memory before or after the linear-memory region, independently of whether pre- or post-guard regions are configured. The accessible range in the initial bug proof-of-concept is up to 32KiB before the start of memory, or ~4GiB after the start of memory, independently of the size of pre- or post-guard regions or the use of explicit or guard-region-based bounds checking. However, the underlying bug assumes a 32-bit memory offset stored in a 64-bit register has its upper bits cleared when it may not, and so closely related variants of the initial proof-of-concept may be able to access truly arbitrary memory in-process. This could result in a host process segmentation fault (DoS), an arbitrary data leak from the host process, or with a write, potentially an arbitrary RCE.
Patches
Wasmtime 43.0.1, 42.0.2, and 36.0.7 have been released with fixes for this issue.
Workaround
There are no workarounds within the Winch compiler backend while using the affected versions. Users of Wasmtime are encouraged either to upgrade to patched versions or, if that is not possible, use the Cranelift compiler backend.
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| wasmtime | >= 25.0.0, < 36.0.7 |
36.0.7 |
| wasmtime | >= 37.0.0, < 42.0.2 |
42.0.2 |
| wasmtime | >= 43.0.0, < 43.0.1 |
43.0.1 |
| wasmtime | >= 0.0.0-0, < 36.0.7>= 37.0.0, < 42.0.2>= 43.0.0, < 43.0.1 |
36.0.742.0.243.0.1 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
wasmtime crates.io → 36.0.7
- cargo
cargo update -p wasmtime --precise 36.0.7
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 9.9
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.
- Architecture and Design: Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Operation, Build and Compilation: Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
- Implementation: Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory: Double check that the buffer is as large as specified. When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string. Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer in a loop and make sure there is no danger of writing past the allocated space. If necessary, truncate all input strings to a reasonable length before passing them to the copy and concatenation functions.
- Operation, Build and Compilation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking. For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
- Operation: Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment. For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
- Implementation: Replace unbounded copy functions with analogous functions that support length arguments, such as strcpy with strncpy. Create these if they are not available.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| RUSTSEC-2026-0424 Unchecked memory usage in transferring borrowed resources between components | Not rated yet | Also affects wasmtime |
| RUSTSEC-2026-0423 Cross-engine type confusion with host-created struct-types-with-supertypes | Not rated yet | Also affects wasmtime |
| RUSTSEC-2026-0422 Typed functions with `i31` or `nullref` arguments may panic due to insufficient type-check | Low | Also affects wasmtime |
| RUSTSEC-2026-0379 Wasmtime: Cranelift backend on aarch64 can jump to incorrect target on large Wasm `br_table` instruction | Critical | Also affects wasmtime |
| GHSA-9pvw-hwfg-92h5 Wasmtime: Panic lowering a host-created component model stream into a guest that expects a different payload type | Medium | Also affects wasmtime |
| GHSA-897f-g5gm-fmxm Wasmtime: Bit-packing in Cranelift compiler causes silent overflow and miscompilation | Critical | Also affects wasmtime |
| RUSTSEC-2026-0364 Exception tags can cause host data structures to be unaligned | Not rated yet | Also affects wasmtime |
| RUSTSEC-2026-0363 Component-model handle tables are capped only per instance and charged to no limit | Medium | Also affects wasmtime |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor