wasmtime is a fast and secure runtime for WebAssembly. In affected versions wasmtime's code generator, Cranelift, has a bug on x86_64 targets where address-mode computation mistakenly would calculate a 35-bit effective address instead of WebAssembly's defined 33-bit effective address. This bug means that, with default codegen settings, a wasm-controlled load/store operation could read/write addresses up to 35 bits away from the base of linear memory. Due to this bug, however, addresses up to 0xffffffff * 8 + 0x7ffffffc = 36507222004 = ~34G bytes away from the base of linear memory are possible from guest code. This means that the virtual memory 6G away from the base of linear memory up to ~34G away can be read/written by a malicious module. A guest module can, without the knowledge of the embedder, read/write memory in this region. The memory may belong to other WebAssembly instances when using the pooling allocator, for example. Affected embedders are recommended to analyze preexisting wasm modules to see if they're affected by the incorrect codegen rules and possibly correlate that with an anomalous number of traps during historical execution to locate possibly suspicious modules. The specific bug in Cranelift's x86_64 backend is that a WebAssembly address which is left-shifted by a constant amount from 1 to 3 will get folded into x86_64's addressing modes which perform shifts. For example (i32.load (i32.shl (local.get 0) (i32.const 3))) loads from the WebAssembly address $local0 << 3. When translated to Cranelift the $local0 << 3 computation, a 32-bit value, is zero-extended to a 64-bit value and then added to the base address of linear memory. Cranelift would generate an instruction of the form movl (%base, %local0, 8), %dst which calculates %base + %local0 << 3. The bug here, however, is that the address computation happens with 64-bit values, where the $local0 << 3 computation was supposed to be truncated to a a 32-bit value. This means that %local0, which can use up to 32-bits for an address, gets 3 extra bits of address space to be accessible via this movl instruction. The fix in Cranelift is to remove the erroneous lowering rules in the backend which handle these zero-extended expression. The above example is then translated to movl %local0, %temp; shl $3, %temp; movl (%base, %temp), %dst which correctly truncates the intermediate computation of %local0 << 3 to 32-bits inside the %temp register which is then added to the %base value. Wasmtime version 4.0.1, 5.0.1, and 6.0.1 have been released and have all been patched to no longer contain the erroneous lowering rules. While updating Wasmtime is recommended, there are a number of possible workarounds that embedders can employ to mitigate this issue if updating is not possible. Note that none of these workarounds are on-by-default and require explicit configuration: 1. The Config::static_memory_maximum_size(0) option can be used to force all accesses to linear memory to be explicitly bounds-checked. This will perform a bounds check separately from the address-mode computation which correctly calculates the effective address of a load/store. Note that this can have a large impact on the execution performance of WebAssembly modules. 2. The Config::static_memory_guard_size(1 << 36) option can be used to greatly increase the guard pages placed after linear memory. This will guarantee that memory accesses up-to-34G away are guaranteed to be semantically correct by reserving unmapped memory for the instance. Note that this reserves a very large amount of virtual memory per-instances and can greatly reduce the maximum number of concurrent instances being run. 3. If using a non-x86_64 host is possible, then that will also work around this bug. This bug does not affect Wasmtime's or Cranelift's AArch64 backend, for example.
CVE-2023-26489
“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.
This critical-severity CVE scores 9.9 under NVD CVSS v3. EPSS exploit probability: 1.3% (69th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.
- High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
A fix is available — apply it.
- CVSS v3
- 9.9
- EG Score
- 9.9CRITICALmedium confidence
- EG Risk
- 45EG Risk 45/100
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.
How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)Severity99% × 45%Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 9.9 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.Exploitation1.2% × 40%FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.Automatability0% × 15%CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines. - EPSS PROB
- 1.3%
- EPSS %ILE
- 69th
- KEV
- Not listed
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.9): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.9 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.9 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 1.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-23). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it
Published
March 8, 2023
Last Modified
November 21, 2024
Advisory Details (5)
Auto-updated Oct 20, 2026Guest-controlled out-of-bounds read/write on x86_64 · Advisory · bytecodealliance/wasmtime · GitHub
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/security/advisories/GHSA-ff4p-7xrq-q5r8commit 63fb30e4b441 (bytecodealliance/wasmtime)
Fix landed in bytecodealliance/wasmtime commit 63fb30e4b441 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/commit/63fb30e4b4415455d47b3da5a19d79c12f4f2d1fConfig in wasmtime - Rust
https://docs.rs/wasmtime/latest/wasmtime/struct.Config.html#method.static_memory_maximum_sizeConfig in wasmtime - Rust
https://docs.rs/wasmtime/latest/wasmtime/struct.Config.html#method.static_memory_guard_sizeAffected Packages
(2 across 1 ecosystem)
crates.io(2)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| cranelift-codegen | — |
| — |
| wasmtime | — |
| — |
Weakness Classification(2)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 15× in last 7d / 44× in last 30d)
Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.
Showing the most recent 95 of 203 refreshes on record for this CVE.
A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 5 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 108 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.
- 2026-10-23 22:58 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-23 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
- 2026-10-22 23:34 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-22 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
- 2026-10-22 00:10 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-21 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
- 2026-10-21 00:41 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-20 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
- 2026-10-20 01:17 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-19 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-19 00:09 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-18 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-18 08:09 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-18 00:44 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-17 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-17 01:16 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-16 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-16 01:27 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-15 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-14 20:59 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-14 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-13 16:51 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-13 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-12 17:24 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-12 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
Show 70 moreShow fewer
- 2026-10-11 21:56 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-11 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-10 19:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-09 20:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-08 17:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-07 23:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-06 15:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-05 17:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-04 23:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-03 14:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-02 16:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-10-01 19:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-09-30 16:19 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-09-30 15:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-09-29 15:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-09-28 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-09-27 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-09-26 00:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-09-24 14:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-09-23 18:52 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-09-23 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-09-22 14:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-09-20 20:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-09-16 14:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
- 2026-09-13 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-09-12 14:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-09-11 14:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-09-11 09:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-09-08 21:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-09-07 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-09-06 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-09-05 15:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-09-04 13:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-09-04 13:29 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-09-04 05:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-09-02 14:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-09-01 13:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-30 19:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-30 01:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-28 21:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-27 14:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-26 14:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-25 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-24 14:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-23 00:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-21 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-20 22:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-19 17:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-18 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-18 00:59 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-08-16 14:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-16 02:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-15 01:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
- 2026-08-13 21:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-08-12 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-08-11 13:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-08-09 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-08-08 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-08-07 16:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-08-06 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-08-05 19:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-08-04 15:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-08-04 10:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-08-03 10:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-08-02 19:57 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-08-02 02:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-08-01 04:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-07-30 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-07-30 01:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
- 2026-07-28 15:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile
Related CVEs(same product + same CWE)
Same product
10 showncrates.io:cranelift-codegen · crates.io:wasmtime
Same CWE
10 shownCWE-787 · CWE-125
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2023-26489?
When was the CVE record for CVE-2023-26489 published?
Is CVE-2023-26489 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2023-26489?
How do I remediate CVE-2023-26489?
Dependency Blast Radius
See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2023-26489
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2023-26489?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.