CVE-2025-61670

LOWNVD 3.33.3
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

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

Score 3.3 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: LOW) published 2026-07-14. NVD baseline CVSS 3.3; 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-2025-33183 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-vvp9-h8p2-xwfc (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

3.3EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 3.3Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. Wasmtime 37.0.0 and 37.0.1 have memory leaks in the C/C++ API when using bindings for the anyref or externref WebAssembly values. This is caused by a regression introduced during the development of 37.0.0 and all prior versions of Wasmtime are unaffected. If anyref or externref is not used in the C/C++ API then embeddings are also unaffected by the leaky behavior. The wasmtime Rust crate is unaffected by this leak.

Development of Wasmtime 37.0.0 included a refactoring in Rust of changing the old ManuallyRooted type to a new OwnedRooted type. This change was integrated into Wasmtime's C API but left the C API in a state which had memory leaks. Additionally the new ownership semantics around this type were not reflected into the C++ API, making it leak-prone. A short version of the change is that previously ManuallyRooted, as the name implies, required manual calls to an "unroot" operation. If this was forgotten then the memory was still cleaned up when the wasmtime_store_t itself was destroyed eventually. Documentation of when to "unroot" was sparse and there were already situations prior to 37.0.0 where memory would be leaked until the store was destroyed anyway. All memory, though, was always bound by the store, and destroying the store would guarantee that there were no memory leaks.

In migrating to OwnedRooted the usage of the type in Rust changed. A manual "unroot" operation is no longer required and it happens naturally as a destructor of the OwnedRooted type in Rust itself. These new resource ownership semantics were not fully integrated into the preexisting semantics of the C/C++ APIs in Wasmtime. A crucial distinction of OwnedRooted vs ManuallyRooted is that the OwnedRooted type allocates host memory outside of the store. This means that if an OwnedRooted is leaked then destroying a store does not release this memory and it's a permanent memory leak on the host.

This led to a few distinct, but related, issues arising: A typo in the wasmtime_val_unroot function in the C API meant that it did not actually unroot anything. This meant that even if embedders faithfully call the function then memory will be leaked. If a host-defined function returned a wasmtime_{externref,anyref}_t value then the value was never unrooted. The C/C++ API no longer has access to the value and the Rust implementation did not unroot. This meant that any values returned this way were never unrooted. The goal of the C++ API of Wasmtime is to encode automatic memory management in the type system, but the C++ API was not updated when OwnedRooted was added. This meant that idiomatic usage of the C++ API would leak memory due to a lack of destructors on values.

These issues have all been fixed in a 37.0.2 release of Wasmtime. The implementation of the C and C++ APIs have been updated accordingly and respectively to account for the changes of ownership here. For example wasmtime_val_unroot has been fixed to unroot, the Rust-side implementation of calling an embedder-defined function will unroot return values, and the C++ API now has destructors on the ExternRef, AnyRef, and Val types. These changes have been made to the 37.0.x release branch in a non-API-breaking fashion. Changes to the 38.0.0 release branch (and main in the Wasmtime repository) include minor API updates to better accommodate the API semantic changes. The only known workaround at this time is to avoid using externref and anyref in the C/C++ API of Wasmtime. If avoiding those types is not possible then it's required for users to update to mitigate the leak issue.

CVSS v3
3.3
EG Score
3.3LOWmedium confidence
EG Risk
15
EG Risk 15/100

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)
Severity33% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 3.3 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.2% × 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 every mission impact level.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
9th
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 (3.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 3.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
3.3 LOWCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.2% 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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)60 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 partial (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

October 7, 2025

Last Modified

June 17, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2025-61670(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(2)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
pipwasmtime-bin @ 37.0.2 (fixes < 37.0.2)—ghsa
rustwasmtime-c-api-impl @ 37.0.2 (fixes >= 37.0.0, < 37.0.2)—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
wasmtime-c-api-impl—
  • 37.0.0 up to 37.0.2: fixed in 37.0.2
—
PyPI(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
wasmtime-bin36.0.9
  • every version up to 37.0.2: fixed in 37.0.2
  • every version through 37.0.0: no fix on record
  • every version through 37.0.1: no fix on record
—

Weakness Classification(1)

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

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 9× in last 7d / 39× 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 195 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 100 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-02 16:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  2. 2026-11-01 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  3. 2026-11-01 08:02 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-vvp9-h8p2-xwfc · GitHub severity LOW · GitHub CVSS 3.3
  4. 2026-11-01 08:02 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-31 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  6. 2026-10-30 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  7. 2026-10-29 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  8. 2026-10-28 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  9. 2026-10-27 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  10. 2026-10-26 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  11. 2026-10-25 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  12. 2026-10-25 16:14 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-25 10:37 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-24 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  15. 2026-10-23 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  16. 2026-10-22 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  17. 2026-10-21 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  18. 2026-10-20 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  19. 2026-10-19 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  20. 2026-10-18 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  21. 2026-10-18 05:22 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-10-17 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  23. 2026-10-16 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  24. 2026-10-15 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  25. 2026-10-14 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
Show 70 more
  1. 2026-10-13 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  2. 2026-10-12 16:52 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-12 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  4. 2026-10-11 20:26 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-11 18:38 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 15:13 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  8. 2026-10-10 19:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  9. 2026-10-09 20:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  10. 2026-10-08 17:10 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  11. 2026-10-07 23:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  12. 2026-10-06 15:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  13. 2026-10-05 17:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  14. 2026-10-04 23:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  15. 2026-10-03 14:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  16. 2026-10-02 03:11 UTCOSV refresh
  17. 2026-10-01 19:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  18. 2026-09-30 15:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  19. 2026-09-29 15:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  20. 2026-09-28 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  21. 2026-09-26 15:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  22. 2026-09-24 14:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  23. 2026-09-23 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  24. 2026-09-20 20:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  25. 2026-09-19 15:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  26. 2026-09-18 19:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  27. 2026-09-17 19:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  28. 2026-09-16 14:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  29. 2026-09-15 03:10 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  30. 2026-09-13 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  31. 2026-09-12 21:06 UTCOSV refresh
  32. 2026-09-12 15:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  33. 2026-09-11 14:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  34. 2026-09-11 09:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  35. 2026-09-10 09:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  36. 2026-09-08 22:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  37. 2026-09-07 16:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  38. 2026-09-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  39. 2026-09-04 05:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  40. 2026-09-02 14:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  41. 2026-09-01 13:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  42. 2026-08-30 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  43. 2026-08-30 01:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  44. 2026-08-28 21:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  45. 2026-08-27 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  46. 2026-08-26 14:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  47. 2026-08-25 01:56 UTCOSV refresh
  48. 2026-08-24 14:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  49. 2026-08-23 00:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  50. 2026-08-21 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  51. 2026-08-19 17:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  52. 2026-08-18 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  53. 2026-08-17 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  54. 2026-08-16 14:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  55. 2026-08-16 02:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  56. 2026-08-15 01:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  57. 2026-08-13 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  58. 2026-08-12 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  59. 2026-08-11 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  60. 2026-08-10 23:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  61. 2026-08-09 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  62. 2026-08-08 19:25 UTCOSV refresh
  63. 2026-08-08 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  64. 2026-08-07 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  65. 2026-08-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  66. 2026-08-05 19:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  67. 2026-08-04 15:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  68. 2026-08-04 10:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  69. 2026-08-03 10:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  70. 2026-08-02 02:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2025-61670?
CVE-2025-61670 is a low-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 7, 2025. Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. Wasmtime 37.0.0 and 37.0.1 have memory leaks in the C/C++ API when using bindings for the anyref or externref WebAssembly values. This is caused by a regression introduced during the development of 37.0.0 and all prior versions of Wasmtime are unaffected. If…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2025-61670 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2025-61670 was published on October 7, 2025. 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 June 17, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2025-61670 actively exploited?
CVE-2025-61670 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (9th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2025-61670?
CVE-2025-61670 has a CVSS v3 base score of 3.3 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2025-61670?
A fix for CVE-2025-61670 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2025-61670 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2025-61670

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2025-61670?

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