CVE-2025-61670 : Detail

CVE-2025-61670

1
/
Rendah
0.02%V4
2025-10-07
18h49 +00:00
Adjacent
2025-10-07
19h16 +00:00
Notifikasi untuk CVE tertentu
Tetap terinformasi tentang perubahan untuk CVE tertentu.
Kelola notifikasi

Deskripsi CVE

Wasmtime has memory leak in C API with `externref` and `anyref` types

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.

Informasi CVE

Kelemahan Terkait

CWE-ID Nama Kelemahan Sumber
CWE-772 Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime
The product does not release a resource after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the resource is no longer needed.

Metrik

Metrik Skor Tingkat keparahan CVSS Vektor Sumber
V4.0 1 LOW CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Adjacent

The vulnerable system is bound to a protocol stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared proximity (e.g., Bluetooth, NFC, or IEEE 802.11) or logical network (e.g., local IP subnet), or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN within an administrative network zone).

Attack Complexity

This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit.

Low

The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements

This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack.

Present

The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system.

Passive

Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system. Examples include: utilizing a website that has been modified to display malicious content when the page is rendered (most stored XSS or CSRF) running an application that calls a malicious binary that has been planted on the system using an application which generates traffic over an untrusted or compromised network (vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker)

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

Low

Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Confidentiality Impact

Negligible

There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Integrity Impact

None

There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Availability Impact

Low

Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Subsequent System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.

Threat Metrics

The Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure.

Supplemental Metrics

Supplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer.

V3.1 3.3 LOW CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Local

The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities.

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

Low

Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

nvd@nist.gov

EPSS

EPSS adalah model penilaian yang memprediksi kemungkinan suatu kerentanan dieksploitasi.

Skor EPSS

Model EPSS menghasilkan skor probabilitas antara 0 dan 1 (0 hingga 100%). Semakin tinggi skor, semakin besar probabilitas bahwa suatu kerentanan akan dieksploitasi.

Persentil EPSS

Persentil digunakan untuk meranking CVE berdasarkan skor EPSS mereka. Misalnya, CVE di persentil ke-95 berdasarkan skor EPSS-nya lebih mungkin dieksploitasi daripada 95% CVE lainnya. Dengan demikian, persentil digunakan untuk membandingkan skor EPSS suatu CVE dengan CVE lainnya.

Produk yang Disebutkan

Konfigurasi 0

Bytecodealliance>>Wasmtime >> Version 37.0.0

Bytecodealliance>>Wasmtime >> Version 37.0.1

Referensi