Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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-2026-34988 is a low-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Bytecodealliance Wasmtime. Its CVSS base score is 2.3 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Process Injection (T1055); ranked at the 21th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-21033
Vulnerability Data
Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. From 28.0.0 to before 36.0.7, 42.0.2, and 43.0.1, Wasmtime's implementation of its pooling allocator contains a bug where in certain configurations the contents of linear memory can be leaked from one instance to the…
more
next. The implementation of resetting the virtual memory permissions for linear memory used the wrong predicate to determine if resetting was necessary, where the compilation process used a different predicate. This divergence meant that the pooling allocator incorrectly deduced at runtime that resetting virtual memory permissions was not necessary while compile-time determine that virtual memory could be relied upon. The pooling allocator must be in use, Config::memory_guard_size configuration option must be 0, Config::memory_reservation configuration must be less than 4GiB, and pooling allocator must be configured with max_memory_size the same as the memory_reservation value in order to exploit this vulnerability. If all of these conditions are applicable then when a linear memory is reused the VM permissions of the previous iteration are not reset. This means that the compiled code, which is assuming out-of-bounds loads will segfault, will not actually segfault and can read the previous contents of linear memory if it was previously mapped. This represents a data leakage vulnerability between guest WebAssembly instances which breaks WebAssembly's semantics and additionally breaks the sandbox that Wasmtime provides. Wasmtime is not vulnerable to this issue with its default settings, nor with the default settings of the pooling allocator, but embeddings are still allowed to configure these values to cause this vulnerability. This vulnerability is fixed in 36.0.7, 42.0.2, and 43.0.1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V17.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Secure engineering principles require memory-safe design and coding that structurally avoids buffer-boundary violations.
Input validation directly enforces bounds checking that stops out-of-bounds reads/writes from being introduced or reached.
Memory protection restricts exploitation impact of buffer overflows without eliminating the underlying coding flaw.
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 SDLC practices (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.
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 catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.