High

CVE-2026-35186 — Wasmtime has an improperly masked return value from `table.grow` with Winch compiler backend

Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. From 25.0.0 to before 36.0.7, 42.0.2, and 43.0.1, Wasmtime's Winch compiler backend contains a bug where translating the table.grow operator causes the result to be incorrectly typed. For 32-bit tables this means that the result of the operator, internally in Winch, is tagged as a 64-bit value instead of a 32-bit value. This invalid internal representation of Winch's compiler state compounds into further issues depending on how the value is consumed. The primary consequence of this bug is that bytes in the host's address space can be stored/read from. This is only applicable to the 16 bytes before linear memory, however, as the only significant return value of table.grow that can be misinterpreted is -1. The bytes before linear memory are, by default, unmapped memory. Wasmtime will detect this fault and abort the process, however, because wasm should not be able to access these bytes. Overall this this bug in Winch represents a DoS vector by crashing the host process, a correctness issue within Winch, and a possible leak of up to 16-bytes before linear memory. Wasmtime's default compiler is Cranelift, not Winch, and Wasmtime's default settings are to place guard pages before linear memory. This means that Wasmtime's default configuration is not affected by this issue, and when explicitly choosing Winch Wasmtime's otherwise default configuration leads to a DoS. Disabling guard pages before linear memory is required to possibly leak up to 16-bytes of host data. 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 0.4% (30-day exploitation probability)+4
Technical severity (high)+6
Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3

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

0.37%

ahead of 30% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026

Affects

Bytecodealliance

Wasmtime

CVSS base

7.5

High · 4 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

Yes

can an attacker script the kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

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).
The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
Search available logs for exploit probes, 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

None

User interaction

None

Scope

Unchanged

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

None

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
6.1	CVSS 4.0	Medium	—	—	security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.1	CVSS 4.0	Medium	—	—	GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
7.5	CVSS 3.1	High	3.9	3.6	134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.5	CVSS 3.1	High	—	—	CISA-ADP via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H (score shown at the top: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-789

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.37%

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).

web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

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 · 7.5
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-f984-pcp8-v2p7
Vendor Advisory, x_refsource_CONFIRM, NIST National Vulnerability Database

Elsewhere on this site

Bytecodealliance
every CVE for this vendor

CWE-789
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-2026-35186 is "Wasmtime has an improperly masked return value from `table.grow` with Winch compiler backend", rated High. It affects Wasmtime (Bytecodealliance); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.37% 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.