Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-24116 is a medium-severity Out-of-bounds Read (CWE-125) vulnerability in Bytecodealliance Wasmtime. Its CVSS base score is 4.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 12th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4773
Vulnerability Data
Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. Starting in version 29.0.0 and prior to version 36.0.5, 40.0.3, and 41.0.1, on x86-64 platforms with AVX, Wasmtime's compilation of the `f64.copysign` WebAssembly instruction with Cranelift may load 8 more bytes than is necessary.…
more
When signals-based-traps are disabled this can result in a uncaught segfault due to loading from unmapped guard pages. With guard pages disabled it's possible for out-of-sandbox data to be loaded, but unless there is another bug in Cranelift this data is not visible to WebAssembly guests. Wasmtime 36.0.5, 40.0.3, and 41.0.1 have been released to fix this issue. Users are recommended to upgrade to the patched versions of Wasmtime. Other affected versions are not patched and users should updated to supported major version instead. This bug can be worked around by enabling signals-based-traps. While disabling guard pages can be a quick fix in some situations, it's not recommended to disabled guard pages as it is a key defense-in-depth measure of Wasmtime.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly finds out-of-bounds read flaws through static analysis, fuzzing, and dynamic bounds checks.
Secure engineering principles require bounds checking and memory-safe constructs that stop out-of-bounds reads from being introduced.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation rejects malformed indices or lengths that would otherwise cause reads outside buffer bounds.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure-development practices such as bounds checking and memory-safe languages directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development and acceptance includes fuzzing and static analysis that detect out-of-bounds read defects before release.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Application security requirements include explicit bounds and memory-safety specifications that mitigate buffer over-reads.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require memory-safe design patterns and runtime protections against out-of-bounds access.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds-checked reads, eliminating CWE-125.