Skip to content

[Proposal] Add comprehensive testing guide for WebAssembly (Wasm) #1483

Open

Description

@Galaxy-sc

What would you like added?
A testing guide for WebAssembly (Wasm). Despite being a W3C standard heavily used in modern web apps, WSTG currently lacks a methodology for auditing it.

The initial proposed content:

  1. Static Analysis: Extracting .wasm modules and analyzing the WebAssembly binary/WAT representation for security-relevant logic, imports, exports, and embedded data.
  2. JavaScript–Wasm Boundary Testing: Testing interactions between JavaScript and Wasm, including unsafe imports/exports, type confusion, and DOM-related attack paths.
  3. Linear Memory & Memory Safety: Testing for out-of-bounds access, memory corruption, unsafe memory handling, and logic flaws that can affect application security.
  4. Information Disclosure: Identifying sensitive data, secrets, credentials, debug information, or proprietary logic exposed within WebAssembly modules.
  5. Wasm Module & Supply-Chain Security: Assessing how Wasm modules are loaded, delivered, validated, and updated, including risks from untrusted or tampered modules.
    (Note: I am researching further Wasm attack vectors, so this outline might evolve.)

Proposed Placement:
Since Wasm introduces a distinct client-side execution model, including compiled code and linear memory, I propose a new top-level chapter (e.g., 4.13 Testing WebAssembly).

However, if the Project Leader prefers keeping it within the existing architecture, I am completely fine adding it as a sub-section (e.g., 4.11.16). Let me know your preference!

Would you like to be assigned to this issue?

  • Assign me, please!

Activity

  1. added this to the v5.0 Release milestone on Aug 28, 2026
  2. kingthorin commented on Aug 28, 2026

    @kingthorin
    Collaborator

    Start with it as 4.13 I guess. It shouldn't be too hard to relocate if we decide later for some reason.

  3. Galaxy-sc commented on Oct 14, 2026

    @Galaxy-sc
    ContributorAuthor

    Hi @kingthorin,

    I have the next two chapters (Static Analysis and Dynamic Analysis) ready. Would you prefer I submit separate PRs for them now, or should we finalize and merge #1548 first to keep the review scope focused?

  4. kingthorin commented on Oct 14, 2026

    @kingthorin
    Collaborator

    If it's ready you can PR it. Maybe the pages separately? (2 PRs)

    Sorry I haven't gotten back to review. Canadian Thanks Giving last weekend and just busy work/family this week. I'll try to get back to the recon one this evening.

  5. Galaxy-sc commented on Oct 14, 2026

    @Galaxy-sc
    ContributorAuthor

    No worries at all! Family and holidays always come first. Hope you had a great Thanksgiving!
    I'll go ahead and open two separate PRs for Static and Dynamic analysis shortly. Thanks for the update!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

newNew content to write

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions