Critical Memory corruption

CVE-2026-34987 — Wasmtime with Winch compiler backend on aarch64 may allow a sandbox-escaping memory access

Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. From 25.0.0 to before 36.0.7, 42.0.2, and 43.0.1, 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. This vulnerability is fixed in 36.0.7, 42.0.2, and 43.0.1.

Published Apr 9, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Low

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.

How the score was calculated

EPSS 0.5% (30-day exploitation probability)+6
Technical severity (critical)+10

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation

Not confirmed

Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.

EPSS FIRST

0.49%

ahead of 41% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026

Affects

Bytecodealliance

Wasmtime

CVSS base

9.9

Critical · 3 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script the kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Bytecodealliance Wasmtime).
No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (memory corruption), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status	Source
Bytecodealliance	Wasmtime	≥ 25.0.0 and < 36.0.7≥ 37.0.0 and < 42.0.2version 43.0.0	Vulnerable	NIST National Vulnerability Database
Bytecodealliance	Wasmtime	version >= 25.0.0, < 36.0.7version >= 37.0.0, < 42.0.2version >= 43.0.0, < 44.0.1	Vulnerable	CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector

Network

Attack complexity

Low

Privileges required

Low

User interaction

None

Scope

Changed

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Availability

High

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Scored by
9.0	CVSS 4.0	Critical	—	—	security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
9.0	CVSS 4.0	Critical	—	—	GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
9.9	CVSS 3.1	Critical	3.1	6.0	nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 15, 2026 · 3 reading(s) · max 0.49%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
Correlate service crashes/restarts with inbound traffic; repeated crashes may indicate attempts.

web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSendpoint telemetry (EDR)crash dumps

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

2026
Affected products added · bytecodealliance/wasmtime
Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
SSVC assessment updated
Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
Record published
Oct 13, 2026
CVSS changed · 9.9
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Source status changed · → Analyzed
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Record created in this database
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVE published
Apr 9, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

1 on the record

github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/security/advisories/GHSA-xx5w-cvp6-jv83
Vendor Advisory, x_refsource_CONFIRM, NIST National Vulnerability Database

Elsewhere on this site

Bytecodealliance
every CVE for this vendor

Memory corruption
same class

CWE-125
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

Low CVE-2026-104855 Wasmtime: Preemption and traps during bulk operations enable breaking internal VM state 13d
Medium CVE-2026-58494 Wasmtime: WASI hard links bypass wasmtime-wasi's FilePerms for destination Jul 8, 2026
Medium CVE-2026-54786 Wasmtime: Leak in WASIp1 `fd_renumber` implementation Jul 1, 2026
High CVE-2026-47261 Wasmtime: WASI path_open(TRUNCATE) bypasses `FilePerms::WRITE` host restriction Jun 15, 2026
High CVE-2026-44216 Wasmtime: Panic when allocating a table exceeding the size of the host's address space May 14, 2026
Medium CVE-2026-35195 Wasmtime has an out-of-bounds write or crash when transcoding component model strings Apr 9, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-34987 is "Wasmtime with Winch compiler backend on aarch64 may allow a sandbox-escaping memory access", rated Critical. It affects Wasmtime (Bytecodealliance); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 9.9 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.49% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.