CVE-2026-27572
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Impact
Wasmtime's implementation of the wasi:http/types.fields resource is susceptible to panics when too many fields are added to the set of headers. Wasmtime's implementation in the wasmtime-wasi-http crate is backed by a data structure which panics when it reaches excessive capacity and this condition was not handled gracefully in Wasmtime. Panicking in a WASI implementation is a Denial of Service vector for embedders and is treated as a security vulnerability in Wasmtime.
Patches
Wasmtime 24.0.6, 36.0.6, 40.0.4, 41.0.4, and 42.0.0 patch this vulnerability and return a trap to the guest instead of panicking.
Workarounds
There are no known workarounds at this time, embedders are encouraged to update to a patched version of Wasmtime.
Resources
GitHub
-
CVSS SCORE
6.9medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| wasmtime | cargo | - | - | <24.0.6 | 24.0.6 |
| wasmtime | cargo | - | - | >=25.0.0,<36.0.6 | 36.0.6 |
| wasmtime | cargo | - | - | >=37.0.0,<40.0.4 | 40.0.4 |
| wasmtime | cargo | - | - | >=41.0.0,<41.0.4 | 41.0.4 |
CVSS:4 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker's payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system. Examples include: utilizing a website that has been modified to display malicious content when the page is rendered (most stored XSS or CSRF) running an application that calls a malicious binary that has been planted on the system using an application which generates traffic over an untrusted or compromised network (vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Subsequent System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
NIST
3.9
CVSS SCORE
6.9mediumDebian
-
Ubuntu
-
CVSS SCORE
N/AmediumRed Hat
1.8
CVSS SCORE
6.3mediumChainguard
CGA-4c8q-mj8w-cjwx
-