CVE-2026-34946
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Impact
Wasmtime's Winch compiler contains a vulnerability where the compilation of the table.fill instruction can result in a host panic. This means that a valid guest can be compiled with Winch, on any architecture, and cause the host to panic. This represents a denial-of-service vulnerability in Wasmtime due to guests being able to trigger a panic.
The specific issue is that a historical refactoring, #11254, changed how compiled code referenced tables within the table.* instructions. This refactoring forgot to update the Winch code paths associated as well, meaning that Winch was using the wrong indexing scheme. Due to the feature support of Winch the only problem that can result is tables being mixed up or nonexistent tables being used, meaning that the guest is limited to panicking the host (using a nonexistent table), or executing spec-incorrect behavior and modifying the wrong table.
Patches
Wasmtime 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
Users of Cranelift are not affected by this issue, but for users of Winch there is no workaround for this bug. Hosts are recommended to updated to a patched version of Wasmtime.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation
Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input
GitHub
CVSS SCORE
5.9medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| wasmtime | cargo | - | - | >=37.0.0,<42.0.2 | 42.0.2 |
| wasmtime | cargo | - | - | =43.0.0 | 43.0.1 |
| wasmtime | cargo | - | - | >=25.0.0,<36.0.7 | 36.0.7 |
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).
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 no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
NIST
3.9
CVSS SCORE
5.9mediumDebian
-
Ubuntu
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5mediumRed Hat
3.9
CVSS SCORE
5.3mediumChainguard
CGA-gqq8-qcr7-4hjj
-