I don't understand what you mean by "a piece of JavaScript code that makes use of such behaviour". Webasm is accessed by javascript, not the other way around.
This really sounds like you have an axe to grind with webasm for some reason, the things you saying seems like grasping at straws. It already works in browsers, so if there is something to exploit you could demonstrate it with a few files on github.
Are you saying webasm will crash or that it is insecure? These are two different things and you seem to be conflating them. In your posts you have said that it is insecure but when you talk about specifics it just seems to be about crashing. Then when pressed you avoid any examples.
I meant working examples. Saying "it's insecure!" and then calling your own words evidence doesn't count.
If there are actual exploits or security flaws, then demonstrate them with a working implementation. You seem to be trying to turn a technical discussion into an emotional one.
But they are addressed differently; in particular internal memory corruption is hard to address from a framework perspective, while external memory corruption can be almost entirely eliminated.
This really sounds like you have an axe to grind with webasm for some reason, the things you saying seems like grasping at straws. It already works in browsers, so if there is something to exploit you could demonstrate it with a few files on github.