Vulnerability Database

358,842

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2021-39219 — bytecodealliance / wasmtime

Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')

Wasmtime is an open source runtime for WebAssembly & WASI. Wasmtime before version 0.30.0 is affected by a type confusion vulnerability. As a Rust library the wasmtime crate clearly marks which functions are safe and which are unsafe, guaranteeing that if consumers never use unsafe then it should not be possible to have memory unsafety issues in their embeddings of Wasmtime. An issue was discovered in the safe API of Linker::func_* APIs. These APIs were previously not sound when one Engine was used to create the Linker and then a different Engine was used to create a Store and then the Linker was used to instantiate a module into that Store. Cross-Engine usage of functions is not supported in Wasmtime and this can result in type confusion of function pointers, resulting in being able to safely call a function with the wrong type. Triggering this bug requires using at least two Engine values in an embedding and then additionally using two different values with a Linker (one at the creation time of the Linker and another when instantiating a module with the Linker). It's expected that usage of more-than-one Engine in an embedding is relatively rare since an Engine is intended to be a globally shared resource, so the expectation is that the impact of this issue is relatively small. The fix implemented is to change this behavior to panic!() in Rust instead of silently allowing it. Using different Engine instances with a Linker is a programmer bug that wasmtime catches at runtime. This bug has been patched and users should upgrade to Wasmtime version 0.30.0. If you cannot upgrade Wasmtime and are using more than one Engine in your embedding it's recommended to instead use only one Engine for the entire program if possible. An Engine is designed to be a globally shared resource that is suitable to have only one for the lifetime of an entire process. If using multiple Engines is required then code should be audited to ensure that Linker is only used with one Engine.

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: Medium
  • Score: 6.3
  • AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H

CWEs:

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.