CVE-2023-26489

CRITICALNVD 9.99.9
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

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

Score 9.9 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: CRITICAL) published 2023-03-09. NVD baseline CVSS 9.9; 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-2023-0998 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-ff4p-7xrq-q5r8 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

9.9EG
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: 1.3%CVSS: 9.9Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

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.

CVSS v3
9.9
EG Score
9.9CRITICALmedium confidence
EG Risk
45
EG 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.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
1.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). 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 (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.

The score's inputs: 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 27, 2026
Patch available. Sources: github_commit, github.
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)

Guest-controlled out-of-bounds read/write on x86_64 · Advisory · bytecodealliance/wasmtime · GitHub

https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/security/advisories/GHSA-ff4p-7xrq-q5r8
GitHub commit

commit 63fb30e4b441 (bytecodealliance/wasmtime)

Fix landed in bytecodealliance/wasmtime commit 63fb30e4b441 — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/commit/63fb30e4b4415455d47b3da5a19d79c12f4f2d1f

Patch Availability(6)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
rustcranelift-codegen @ 0.91.1 (fixes >= 0.84.0, < 0.91.1)—ghsa
rustcranelift-codegen @ 0.92.1 (fixes >= 0.92.0, < 0.92.1)—ghsa
rustcranelift-codegen @ 0.93.1 (fixes >= 0.93.0, < 0.93.1)—ghsa
rustwasmtime @ 4.0.1 (fixes >= 0.37.0, < 4.0.1)—ghsa
rustwasmtime @ 5.0.1 (fixes >= 5.0.0, < 5.0.1)—ghsa
rustwasmtime @ 6.0.1 (fixes >= 6.0.0, < 6.0.1)—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 1 ecosystem)
crates.io(2)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
cranelift-codegen—
  • 0.84.0 up to 0.91.1: fixed in 0.91.1
  • 0.92.0 up to 0.92.1: fixed in 0.92.1
  • 0.93.0 up to 0.93.1: fixed in 0.93.1
—
wasmtime—
  • 0.37.0 up to 4.0.1: fixed in 4.0.1
  • 5.0.0 up to 5.0.1: fixed in 5.0.1
  • 6.0.0 up to 6.0.1: fixed in 6.0.1
  • 0.0.0-0 up to 4.0.1: fixed in 4.0.1
—

Weakness Classification(2)

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

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 16× in last 7d / 55× 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 100 of 229 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. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 129 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-01 21:26 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-11-01 21:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-ff4p-7xrq-q5r8 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.9
  3. 2026-11-01 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
  4. 2026-11-01 08:21 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-ff4p-7xrq-q5r8 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.9
  5. 2026-11-01 08:21 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-31 22:02 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-31 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
  8. 2026-10-30 22:37 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-30 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
  10. 2026-10-29 23:13 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-29 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
  12. 2026-10-28 23:49 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-28 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
  14. 2026-10-28 00:25 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-27 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
  16. 2026-10-27 00:59 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-26 16:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
  18. 2026-10-25 17:46 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-25 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
  20. 2026-10-24 22:23 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-10-24 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
  22. 2026-10-23 22:58 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-23 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
  24. 2026-10-22 23:34 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-22 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-22 00:10 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-21 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
  3. 2026-10-21 00:41 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-20 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 69th percentile
  5. 2026-10-20 01:17 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-19 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  7. 2026-10-19 00:09 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-18 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  9. 2026-10-18 08:09 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-18 00:44 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-17 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  12. 2026-10-17 01:16 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-16 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  14. 2026-10-16 01:27 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-15 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  16. 2026-10-14 20:59 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-14 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  18. 2026-10-13 16:51 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-13 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  20. 2026-10-12 17:24 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-10-12 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  22. 2026-10-11 21:56 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-11 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  24. 2026-10-10 19:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  25. 2026-10-09 20:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  26. 2026-10-08 17:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  27. 2026-10-07 23:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  28. 2026-10-06 15:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  29. 2026-10-05 17:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  30. 2026-10-04 23:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  31. 2026-10-03 14:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  32. 2026-10-02 16:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  33. 2026-10-01 19:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  34. 2026-09-30 16:19 UTCEG score recompute
  35. 2026-09-30 15:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  36. 2026-09-29 15:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  37. 2026-09-28 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  38. 2026-09-27 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  39. 2026-09-26 00:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  40. 2026-09-24 14:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  41. 2026-09-23 18:52 UTCOSV refresh
  42. 2026-09-23 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  43. 2026-09-22 14:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  44. 2026-09-20 20:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  45. 2026-09-16 14:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 68th percentile
  46. 2026-09-13 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  47. 2026-09-12 14:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  48. 2026-09-11 14:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  49. 2026-09-11 09:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  50. 2026-09-08 21:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  51. 2026-09-07 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  52. 2026-09-06 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  53. 2026-09-05 15:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  54. 2026-09-04 13:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  55. 2026-09-04 13:29 UTCOSV refresh
  56. 2026-09-04 05:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  57. 2026-09-02 14:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  58. 2026-09-01 13:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  59. 2026-08-30 19:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  60. 2026-08-30 01:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  61. 2026-08-28 21:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  62. 2026-08-27 14:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  63. 2026-08-26 14:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  64. 2026-08-25 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  65. 2026-08-24 14:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  66. 2026-08-23 00:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  67. 2026-08-21 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  68. 2026-08-20 22:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  69. 2026-08-19 17:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  70. 2026-08-18 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  71. 2026-08-18 00:59 UTCOSV refresh
  72. 2026-08-16 14:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  73. 2026-08-16 02:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  74. 2026-08-15 01:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 67th percentile
  75. 2026-08-13 21:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 1.3% · 66th percentile

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2023-26489?
CVE-2023-26489 is a critical-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on March 8, 2023. 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…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2023-26489 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2023-26489 was published on March 8, 2023. 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-2023-26489 actively exploited?
CVE-2023-26489 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 1.3% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (69th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2023-26489?
CVE-2023-26489 has a CVSS v3 base score of 9.9 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2023-26489?
A fix for CVE-2023-26489 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-2023-26489

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2023-26489?

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