Case · DiggingBeagle record

WADE learns WebAssembly execution patterns to flag abnormal function-call paths

A WebAssembly runtime detector trains per-application LSTM models on benign function-call traces and reports zero missed attacks and 0.42 percent false positives in a selected dataset of 67 applications.

Scope

Zero misses is bounded to the evaluated attacks and applications; it cannot prove zero misses for unseen deployments. Data-only abuses that preserve normal-looking function traces may evade the detector, and instrumentation overhead and baseline drift need independent workload tests.

Assessment profile

Assessment method
Setting
evaluation
Exploitation
demonstrated
Evidence
Grade B
Remediation
not applicable
AI role
AGAINST AI
Basis and provenance

Enrich update: CLM-ENRICH-20261027-40 cites SRC-2026-CP21-WADE-WASM-LSTM-ATTACK-DETECTOR at Abstract, application-specific LSTM and evaluated vulnerability classes. New evidence concerns the bounded reported mechanism, prerequisite or outcome; setting evaluation; exploit status demonstrated; remediation status not_applicable. No independently comparable impact scale, affected production population or universal exploit success measure was established, so the impact band remains null. Original Claims remain individually attributable and any observed incident or simulated result is distinguished in the narrative.

Assessed Oct 27, 2026 using diggingbeagle.assessment/1.

At a glance

Timeline

  1. Oct 22, 2026
    disclosure

    Public disclosure

Claims & evidence

CLM-ENRICH-20261027-40WADE uses benign function-call traces to train a distinct LSTM behavioral baseline per WebAssembly application, so its reported zero missed attacks is bounded to 67 tested applications and ten vulnerability classes.supported

Basis: reported finding

Link to claim
CLM-CP21-WADE-WASM-LSTM-ATTACK-DETECTOR-1WADE collects benign WebAssembly function-level execution sequences and uses an LSTM anomaly detector to flag deviations. The authors report evaluation across 67 Wasm applications and ten vulnerability classes, with zero observed false negatives and a 0.42 percent false positive rate on that dataset.supported

Basis: reported finding

Link to claim

Implications

Learned call-sequence detection can complement execution containment but should not substitute for memory safety and authorization checks.

Controls and mitigations

  • Compare traced normal and exploited workloads under prospective holdouts, monitor performance overhead and test whether semantically harmful actions without anomalous calls are invisible.

Unknowns and contradictions

  • Zero misses is bounded to the evaluated attacks and applications; it cannot prove zero misses for unseen deployments. Data-only abuses that preserve normal-looking function traces may evade the detector, and instrumentation overhead and baseline drift need independent workload tests.

Sources and citation

Material revision history

  1. Oct 27, 2026 · Canonical change recorded · new in release · revision 196