CVE-2021-32629

HIGHNVD 7.27.2
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.

Score 7.2 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2021-08-25. NVD baseline CVSS 7.2; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3
Trending — 3 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2021-0466 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-hpqh-2wqx-7qp5 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.2EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.5%CVSS: 7.2Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Cranelift is an open-source code generator maintained by Bytecode Alliance. It translates a target-independent intermediate representation into executable machine code. There is a bug in 0.73 of the Cranelift x64 backend that can create a scenario that could result in a potential sandbox escape in a Wasm program. This bug was introduced in the new backend on 2020-09-08 and first included in a release on 2020-09-30, but the new backend was not the default prior to 0.73. The recently-released version 0.73 with default settings, and prior versions with an explicit build flag to select the new backend, are vulnerable. The bug in question performs a sign-extend instead of a zero-extend on a value loaded from the stack, under a specific set of circumstances. If those circumstances occur, the bug could allow access to memory addresses upto 2GiB before the start of the Wasm program heap. If the heap bound is larger than 2GiB, then it would be possible to read memory from a computable range dependent on the size of the heaps bound. The impact of this bug is highly dependent on heap implementation, specifically: * if the heap has bounds checks, and * does not rely exclusively on guard pages, and * the heap bound is 2GiB or smaller * then this bug cannot be used to reach memory from another Wasm program heap. The impact of the vulnerability is mitigated if there is no memory mapped in the range accessible using this bug, for example, if there is a 2 GiB guard region before the Wasm program heap. The bug in question performs a sign-extend instead of a zero-extend on a value loaded from the stack, when the register allocator reloads a spilled integer value narrower than 64 bits. This interacts poorly with another optimization: the instruction selector elides a 32-to-64-bit zero-extend operator when we know that an instruction producing a 32-bit value actually zeros the upper 32 bits of its destination register. Hence, we rely on these zeroed bits, but the type of the value is still i32, and the spill/reload reconstitutes those bits as the sign extension of the i32’s MSB. The issue would thus occur when: * An i32 value in a Wasm program is greater than or equal to 0x8000_0000; * The value is spilled and reloaded by the register allocator due to high register pressure in the program between the value’s definition and its use; * The value is produced by an instruction that we know to be “special” in that it zeroes the upper 32 bits of its destination: add, sub, mul, and, or; * The value is then zero-extended to 64 bits in the Wasm program; * The resulting 64-bit value is used. Under these circumstances there is a potential sandbox escape when the i32 value is a pointer. The usual code emitted for heap accesses zero-extends the Wasm heap address, adds it to a 64-bit heap base, and accesses the resulting address. If the zero-extend becomes a sign-extend, the program could reach backward and access memory up to 2GiB before the start of its heap. In addition to assessing the nature of the code generation bug in Cranelift, we have also determined that under specific circumstances, both Lucet and Wasmtime using this version of Cranelift may be exploitable. See referenced GitHub Advisory for more details.

CVSS v3
7.2
EG Score
7.2HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
33
EG Risk 33/100

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)
Severity72% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.2 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.5% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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
0.5%
EPSS %ILE
39th
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 (7.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.2 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.2 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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

May 24, 2021

Last Modified

November 21, 2024

References (4)

Patch Availability(2)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
pipwasmtime @ 0.27.0 (fixes >= 0, < 0.27.0)—ghsa
rustcranelift-codegen @ 0.73.1 (fixes < 0.73.1)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(2 across 2 ecosystems)
crates.io(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
cranelift-codegen—
  • every version up to 0.73.1: fixed in 0.73.1
  • 0.0.0-0 up to 0.73.1: fixed in 0.73.1
—
PyPI(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
wasmtime0.0.1 ... 0.9.0 (21 versions)
  • every version up to 0.27.0: fixed in 0.27.0
—

Weakness Classification(3)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 10× in last 7d / 38× 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 94 of 212 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. 6 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 118 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-01 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  2. 2026-11-01 08:32 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-hpqh-2wqx-7qp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.2
  3. 2026-11-01 08:32 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-31 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  5. 2026-10-30 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  6. 2026-10-29 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  7. 2026-10-28 23:45 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-28 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  9. 2026-10-27 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  10. 2026-10-26 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  11. 2026-10-25 18:28 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-25 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 39th percentile
  13. 2026-10-24 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  14. 2026-10-23 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  15. 2026-10-22 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  16. 2026-10-21 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  17. 2026-10-21 09:40 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-10-20 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  19. 2026-10-19 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  20. 2026-10-18 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  21. 2026-10-18 14:25 UTCOSV refresh
  22. 2026-10-18 09:01 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-17 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  24. 2026-10-16 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  25. 2026-10-15 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
Show 69 more
  1. 2026-10-14 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  2. 2026-10-13 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  3. 2026-10-12 19:16 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-12 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  5. 2026-10-11 23:41 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 13:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  7. 2026-10-10 19:56 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  8. 2026-10-09 20:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  9. 2026-10-08 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  10. 2026-10-07 23:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  11. 2026-10-06 15:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  12. 2026-10-05 17:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  13. 2026-10-04 23:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  14. 2026-10-03 14:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  15. 2026-10-01 19:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  16. 2026-09-30 15:36 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-09-30 15:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  18. 2026-09-29 15:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  19. 2026-09-28 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 36th percentile
  20. 2026-09-27 13:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 36th percentile
  21. 2026-09-26 15:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 36th percentile
  22. 2026-09-26 01:12 UTCOSV refresh
  23. 2026-09-26 00:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 36th percentile
  24. 2026-09-24 14:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 36th percentile
  25. 2026-09-23 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  26. 2026-09-22 14:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  27. 2026-09-21 20:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  28. 2026-09-19 15:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  29. 2026-09-18 19:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  30. 2026-09-17 19:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  31. 2026-09-16 14:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  32. 2026-09-15 03:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  33. 2026-09-13 16:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  34. 2026-09-12 14:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  35. 2026-09-11 14:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  36. 2026-09-11 09:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  37. 2026-09-08 21:56 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  38. 2026-09-07 15:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  39. 2026-09-06 16:01 UTCOSV refresh
  40. 2026-09-06 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  41. 2026-09-05 15:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  42. 2026-09-04 13:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  43. 2026-09-04 05:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  44. 2026-09-02 14:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  45. 2026-09-01 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  46. 2026-09-01 03:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  47. 2026-08-30 19:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  48. 2026-08-30 01:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  49. 2026-08-28 21:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  50. 2026-08-27 14:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  51. 2026-08-26 14:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  52. 2026-08-25 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  53. 2026-08-24 14:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  54. 2026-08-23 00:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 38th percentile
  55. 2026-08-21 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  56. 2026-08-20 22:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  57. 2026-08-20 02:15 UTCOSV refresh
  58. 2026-08-19 17:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  59. 2026-08-18 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  60. 2026-08-17 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  61. 2026-08-16 14:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  62. 2026-08-16 02:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  63. 2026-08-15 01:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  64. 2026-08-13 21:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  65. 2026-08-12 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  66. 2026-08-11 13:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  67. 2026-08-09 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  68. 2026-08-08 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile
  69. 2026-08-07 16:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 37th percentile

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2021-32629?
CVE-2021-32629 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on May 24, 2021. Cranelift is an open-source code generator maintained by Bytecode Alliance. It translates a target-independent intermediate representation into executable machine code. There is a bug in 0.73 of the Cranelift x64 backend that can create a scenario that could result in a potential sandbox escape in…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2021-32629 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2021-32629 was published on May 24, 2021. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of November 21, 2024; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2021-32629 actively exploited?
CVE-2021-32629 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.5% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (39th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2021-32629?
CVE-2021-32629 has a CVSS v3 base score of 7.2 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2021-32629?
A fix for CVE-2021-32629 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2021-32629

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2021-32629?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.