CVE-2026-34943

ADVISORY - github

Summary

Impact

Wasmtime contains a possible panic which can happen when a flags-typed component model value is lifted with the Val type. If bits are set outside of the set of flags the component model specifies that these bits should be ignored but Wasmtime will panic when this value is lifted. This panic only affects wasmtime's implementation of lifting into Val, not when using the flags! macro. This additionally only affects flags-typed values which are part of a WIT interface.

This has the risk of being a guest-controlled panic within the host which Wasmtime considers a DoS vector.

Patches

Wasmtime 24.0.7, 36.0.7, 42.0.2, and 43.0.1 have been issued to fix this bug. Users are recommended to update to these patched versions of Wasmtime.

Workarounds

There is no workaround for this bug if a host meets the criteria to be affected. To be affected a host must be using wasmtime::component::Val and possibly work with a flags type in the component model.

EPSS Score: 0.00018 (0.050)

Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)

ADVISORY - nist

Uncaught Exception

ADVISORY - github

Uncaught Exception

ADVISORY - redhat

Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input


GitHub

CREATED

UPDATED

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

3.9

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)

CVSS SCORE

5.6medium
PackageTypeOS NameOS VersionAffected RangesFix Versions
wasmtimecargo-->=37.0.0,<42.0.242.0.2
wasmtimecargo--<24.0.724.0.7
wasmtimecargo--=43.0.043.0.1
wasmtimecargo-->=25.0.0,<36.0.736.0.7

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).

A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control, requiring investing a measurable amount of effort in research, preparation, or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack.

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 significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system's settings and files.

Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a targeted user to perform specific, conscious interactions with the vulnerable system and the attacker's payload, or the user's interactions would actively subvert protection mechanisms which would lead to exploitation of the vulnerability. Examples include: importing a file into a vulnerable system in a specific manner placing files into a specific directory prior to executing code submitting a specific string into a web application (e.g. reflected or self XSS) dismiss or accept prompts or security warnings prior to taking an action (e.g. opening/editing a file, connecting a device).

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 no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

NIST

CREATED

UPDATED

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

3.9

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)

CVSS SCORE

5.6medium

Debian

CREATED

UPDATED

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

-

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)-
RATING UNAVAILABLE FROM ADVISORY

Ubuntu

CREATED

UPDATED

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

3.9

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)-

CVSS SCORE

7.5medium

Red Hat

CREATED

UPDATED

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

3.1

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)

CVSS SCORE

5medium

Chainguard

CREATED

UPDATED

ADVISORY ID

CGA-jq5v-33fj-fvcj

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

-

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)-
RATING UNAVAILABLE FROM ADVISORY