CVE-2026-34943
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedWasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. Prior to 24.0.7, 36.0.7, 42.0.2, and 43.0.1, Wasmtime contains a possible panic which can happen when a flags-typed component model value is lifted with the Val type. If bits are set outside of the set of flags the component model specifies that these bits should be ignored but Wasmtime will panic when this value is lifted. This panic only affects wasmtime's implementation of lifting into Val, not when using the flags! macro. This additionally only affects flags-typed values which are part of a WIT interface. This has the risk of being a guest-controlled panic within the host which Wasmtime considers a DoS vector. This vulnerability is fixed in 24.0.7, 36.0.7, 42.0.2, and 43.0.1.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceWasmtime contains a guest-triggerable panic when lifting flags-typed component model values with extra bits set into the Val type. According to the component model spec, extra bits should be ignored, but Wasmtime instead panics. This only affects flags values in WIT interfaces when using the Val lifting API, not the flags! macro. A malicious guest can trigger this panic, causing denial of service on the host.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 24.0.7>= 25.0.0, < 36.0.7>= 37.0.0, < 42.0.2>= 43.0.0, < 43.0.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Wasmtime installation and versionRun `wasmtime --version` or check the Wasmtime library version in your dependency manifest (Cargo.toml, package.json, etc.)Affected if The installed version is < 24.0.7, or between 25.0.0 and 36.0.7, or between 37.0.0 and 42.0.2, or between 43.0.0 and 43.0.1
-
Determine if component model with WIT interfaces is in useInspect your Wasmtime runtime configuration and loaded modules for usage of the component model (check for `wasmtime::component::Val` or component imports with WIT files)Affected if You are using Wasmtime's component model feature with WIT-defined interfaces containing flags types
-
Verify use of the Val lifting APISearch your codebase or runtime configuration for calls to lift values into the Val type, such as `Val::from_*` methods or similar lifting functions applied to flags-typed data from WIT interfacesAffected if Your code uses the Val lifting API to convert flags-typed component model values from WIT interfaces (not the flags! macro)
-
Confirm guest-controlled flags inputReview whether untrusted WebAssembly guests can invoke functions accepting flags-typed arguments defined in WIT interfaces and pass arbitrary flag combinationsAffected if Untrusted guest code can call exported functions that accept flags-typed parameters from WIT interfaces, allowing extra bits to be set
You are affected if your Wasmtime version falls within any of the vulnerable ranges AND you use the Val lifting API to handle flags-typed values from WIT interfaces with untrusted guest input.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped24.0.736.0.742.0.2
Upgrade Wasmtime to version 24.0.7, 36.0.7, 42.0.2, or 43.0.1 or later to resolve the panic condition.
Wasmtime 24.0.7, 36.0.7, 42.0.2, or 43.0.1 (depending on your current major version branch)
- 1. Identify the current Wasmtime version in use by checking your Cargo.toml, lock file, or runtime configuration
- 2. Determine which major version branch you are on (24.x, 25.x-36.x, 37.x-42.x, or 43.x)
- 3. For 24.x branch: upgrade to version 24.0.7 or later
- 4. For 25.x-36.x branch: upgrade to version 36.0.7 or later
- 5. For 37.x-42.x branch: upgrade to version 42.0.2 or later
- 6. For 43.x branch: upgrade to version 43.0.1
- 7. Update the Wasmtime dependency in your Cargo.toml (e.g., change wasmtime = "24.0" to wasmtime = "24.0.7")
- 8. Run cargo update wasmtime to refresh the lock file
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-34943 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-34943 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data