Skip to content

GHSA-35g8-35p8-c8fw CVE-2026-102821

Russh: Unbounded memory exhaustion via CHANNEL_OPEN flood during a client-stalled rekey

Medium crates.io
Severity
6.5 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.36%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 29.59% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
0.63.2
Upgrade russh to this version or later

Description

Summary

A russh server can be driven to unbounded heap growth (process OOM / kill) by a peer that speaks only standard SSH messages, in the default configuration.

The peer starts a key re-exchange (sends SSH_MSG_KEXINIT) but never sends the follow-up SSH_MSG_KEX_ECDH_INIT, leaving the server's kex state machine in SessionKexState::InProgress indefinitely. While a rekey is in progress the server's three message-drain paths are all gated off (if !self.kex.active()), but the network-read path stays active, so every SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_OPEN the peer sends is processed inline and appends one reply to an unbounded internal queue (priority_receiver, an UnboundedReceiver) that is not dequeued until the rekey completes. Because the peer decides whether the rekey ever completes, the queue — and the server's memory — grows without bound.

This is reproducible end-to-end against a real russh server over a real encrypted transport; see "Proof of concept". A one-line negative control (same flood, no rekey) keeps memory flat, isolating the rekey window as the sole trigger.

Impact

  • Availability / DoS. Server RSS climbs at roughly 3.3 KB per CHANNEL_OPEN, driven entirely by the peer, until the process is OOM-killed. In the reproduction one connection pushed the server from ~4 MB to 2.57 GB (and past 4.8 GB against the stock echoserver example) and it was still climbing when the flood was stopped.
  • Reached with standard messages, no special configuration. Any handler is affected, including one that rejects every channel (the reply enqueued on rejection is exactly what accumulates). There is no per-connection cap on in-flight channel opens or on the queue, and the queue's sender has no backpressure.
  • The peer keeps the connection alive simply by continuing to send, so the inactivity timer never fires.

Affected component

  • russh/src/server/session.rs — Session::run tokio::select! loop. The network-read arm is ungated; the three drain paths are gated on !self.kex.active().
  • russh/src/server/mod.rs — reply() routes a non-kex message received during a rekey straight to server_read_encrypted (inline processing).
  • russh/src/lib_inner.rs — ChannelOpenHandleInner's accept/reject/Drop all send a reply on an UnboundedSender.

Verified on v0.63.1 (commit d3ae702), which is the latest release. The gating logic predates it.

Details

Session::run (russh/src/server/session.rs:631) drives a tokio::select! (:713). Three of its message-drain sites are gated on !self.kex.active():

  • the pre-select! batch drain of priority_receiver/receiver (session.rs:680),
  • the priority_receiver.recv() arm (session.rs:762),
  • the receiver.recv() arm (session.rs:770, which also holds the only other priority_receiver drain at :777).

The fourth arm, r = &mut reading (session.rs:714), is ungated: it reads and processes one incoming packet every loop iteration regardless of rekey state, calling reply() (server/mod.rs:1128).

During a rekey, session.common.encrypted.is_some(), so the strict-kex message-ordering guard (server/mod.rs:1143, which is additionally gated on encrypted.is_none()) does not apply. A non-kex message therefore falls through reply() to session.server_read_encrypted(handler, pkt) (server/mod.rs:1232) and is handled inline. For SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_OPEN this reaches the channel-open handling, which hands the application a ChannelOpenHandle.

Whether the handler accepts or (the trait default) rejects, the handle's accept / reject / Drop all send a Msg::ChannelOpenReply on an UnboundedSender (russh/src/lib_inner.rs:560-603; Drop sends AdministrativelyProhibited at :594-603). That sender feeds priority_receiver, declared UnboundedReceiver<Msg> (session.rs:23) and created with tokio::sync::mpsc::unbounded_channel() (session.rs:1522). Its only drain sites are the three arms gated off during the rekey. So each CHANNEL_OPEN processed during the rekey window appends one reply (carrying a PendingChannelOpen = channel params + mpsc ChannelRef + ids, a few KB retained in practice) to a queue that is never dequeued.

Two facts make this unbounded and remote:

  1. The server enters InProgress the moment it receives the peer's KEXINIT (server/mod.rs:1153-1158, begin_rekey) and only leaves it upon receiving the peer's KEX_ECDH_INIT. The peer decides whether to ever send that, so the window is attacker-held.
  2. There is no per-connection cap on channels or on the priority queue, and the sender is unbounded (no backpressure).

Root cause

The intended design was to buffer packets received during a rekey and replay them afterwards: the fields pending_reads: Vec<Vec<u8>> and pending_len: u32 (session.rs:26-27) exist and are drained at kex completion (server/mod.rs:1194-1198). But nothing ever pushes to pending_reads or increments pending_len (they are dead — confirmed by grep across russh/src/). Instead of being buffered, channel messages received during a rekey are processed inline, and their replies pile up in the unbounded priority_receiver. The missing piece is a bound on — or bounded deferral of — channel processing while kex.active().

Proof of concept

Everything runs inside a container; nothing touches the host.

Lab. poc/Dockerfile builds russh-lab:head from Eugeny/russh @ d3ae702 (v0.63.1), default features (rust 1.91). A raw-SSH-client PoC (poc/poc_rekey_dos.rs) implements curve25519-sha256 / ssh-ed25519 / aes256-ctr / hmac-sha2-256 by hand, completes the handshake and a publickey auth, then:

  1. sends SSH_MSG_KEXINIT (server enters kex.active()),
  2. never sends KEX_ECDH_INIT (rekey stalls, attacker-held),
  3. floods SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_OPEN.

A minimal server (poc/poc_server.rs) uses the trait-default channel_open_session (which rejects by dropping the handle), so the measured growth is purely the undrained priority queue, not accepted-channel state.

poc/run.sh runs the attack leg and an identical negative control with no rekey. Fresh run inside the lab, N = 800,000 opens (results/rerun-2026-08-29.log):

=== ATTACK (rekey stall) === (poc_server baseline_RSS=4208KB, N=800000)
  t=2s  server_RSS=667760KB
  t=4s  server_RSS=1599600KB
  t=6s  server_RSS=2556016KB
  t=8s  server_RSS=2566256KB   (flood done; memory retained)
=== CONTROL (no rekey) === (poc_server baseline_RSS=4208KB, N=800000)
  t=2s..t=12s  server_RSS=4208KB   (flat throughout)
  • ATTACK: RSS 4,208 KB → 2,566,256 KB (~2.57 GB) and retained after the flood ends — ~3.3 KB per CHANNEL_OPEN, attacker-driven. (An earlier canonical run reached 2.7 GB at 800k opens, and past 4.8 GB against the stock echoserver example at 1.5 M opens — see results/canonical-run.log.)
  • CONTROL: RSS flat at 4,208 KB. Without the rekey window the replies are drained normally; TCP backpressure (the client never reads the failure replies) even throttles the flood.

The control isolates the rekey window as the sole trigger. Both legs exercise the real server entry point (Session::run → reply → server_read_encrypted) over a real encrypted transport.

Reproduce: C=russh-lab N=800000 ./poc/run.sh (see poc/POC-README.md).

Remediation

The priority queue carries locally generated channel-open replies, which are non-kex messages the server must not send during a rekey anyway (RFC 4253 §7.1). So the fix is to bound how much channel work is done during a rekey, not to drain the queue mid-rekey. Any of:

  • (recommended, minimal) cap the number of non-kex messages processed while a rekey is in progress and disconnect a peer that exceeds it. A stalled/abusive rekey is then torn down after a small constant instead of growing memory without bound. See patch/rekey-message-cap.patch (a ~10-line change local to Session::run, validated in the lab — the attack leg is disconnected after the cap and RSS stays flat; a normal rekey, which completes in one round trip, is unaffected).
  • bound / deferred-buffer channel messages during a rekey using the existing (currently dead) pending_reads/pending_len machinery, with a hard cap.
  • bound the number of in-flight channel opens per connection and reject beyond it.

OpenSSH does not service new channels mid-kex; matching that intent closes the whole family.

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
russh
< 0.63.2
0.63.2

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

russh crates.io → 0.63.2

cargo
cargo update -p russh --precise 0.63.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
  • Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
  • Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqv
russh: Agent server never calls `Agent::confirm`, so keys added with the confirm constraint (`ssh-add -c`) sign without confirmation
High Also affects russh
GHSA-fw5c-8223-6h42
russh: peer-declared zero maximum packet size permanently stalls channel writes (silent AsyncWrite hang)
Medium Also affects russh
GHSA-9wfm-jcj8-jfv9
russh's SSH agent server is susceptible to unbound allocations via repeated SSH_AGENT_CONSTRAIN_CONFIRM messages
Low Also affects russh
GHSA-4p9f-7p9m-5vfg
russh's SSH client is susceptible to unbounded allocations via EXT_INFO packets
Medium Also affects russh
GHSA-4wc5-f2rc-q74m
russh: Unbounded memory allocation in agent protocol server via crafted constraint records
Medium Also affects russh
GHSA-j7h2-66j4-ghjf
A russh SSH server accepts a publickey authentication whose signature uses a different algorithm than the one named in the request
Low Also affects russh
GHSA-g6xm-f9xp-qq35
Russh: Configured server auth-attempt cap is not enforced in the USERAUTH_REQUEST runtime path
Low Also affects russh
GHSA-w3jg-pjxf-73p4
Russh: Missing X25519 zero-point validation in hybrid ML-KEM key exchange
Medium Also affects russh
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor