GHSA-76r6-x97p-67vr CVE-2026-48108
Russh: SSH identification parsing accepted non-canonical client banners and did not bound pre-banner input
- Severity
- 5.3 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.28%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 20.12% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
- Fix
0.61.0- Upgrade russh to this version or later
Description
Summary
russh did not enforce the SSH identification-string rules as deliberately as OpenSSH. In particular, the server-side identification reader used the same permissive path as the client, allowing pre-banner lines from clients, and the reader did not enforce a bounded number of pre-banner lines.
For a library server built on russh, this could allow a remote peer to hold connection setup resources in the cleartext pre-authentication phase with malformed identification input that should have been rejected early.
Details
RFC 4253 section 4.2 defines the SSH protocol version exchange. The identification string is a single line terminated by CR LF, must fit within 255 characters including CR LF, and clients should not send pre-banner lines before their SSH identification string.
Before the fix, russh's identification reader lived in:
russh/src/ssh_read.rsrussh/src/server/mod.rs
The same read_ssh_id() behavior was used for both client and server contexts. That allowed server-side parsing to accept preliminary banner lines from clients, even though RFC 4253 only describes server-side pre-identification text. The reader also discarded preliminary lines without a line-count cap, so a peer could repeatedly send short non-SSH lines and keep the connection in identification parsing until an application-level timeout or external resource limit intervened.
This also creates a remotely observable parser-state oracle inside a single connection. A client can send candidate identification lines one after another: lines not recognized as SSH identification are discarded as pre-banner text, while an accepted identification string terminates banner parsing and advances the connection into key exchange. A strict server would reject the first invalid client pre-banner line and force a reconnect for each probe. This can disclose server-side parser acceptance behavior and make fingerprinting cheaper, though it does not disclose application secrets, credentials, keys, or authenticated user data.
The patch splits the behavior between generic/server-banner-tolerant reading and stricter client-identification reading. It also adds explicit limits for line length and pre-banner line count.
Relevant branch commit:
3de4a68 Harden SSH identification parsing
RFC / OpenSSH Comparison
RFC 4253 section 4.2 says each side sends an identification string of the form SSH-protoversion-softwareversion SP comments CR LF. It allows a server to send other lines before its identification string, but says a client must be able to process such lines. It does not grant the same pre-banner allowance to clients.
OpenSSH portable enforces explicit identification limits:
/home/mjc/projects/openssh-portable/ssh.h:SSH_MAX_BANNER_LEN/home/mjc/projects/openssh-portable/ssh.h:SSH_MAX_PRE_BANNER_LINES/home/mjc/projects/openssh-portable/kex.c: client-side handling of server pre-banner lines/home/mjc/projects/openssh-portable/ssh_api.c: rejects pre-banner lines when acting as a server
I checked /home/mjc/projects/openssh-portable at 45b30e0a5. OpenSSH uses an implementation banner line limit of 8192 bytes and a pre-banner line cap of 1024, which is more permissive than RFC 4253's 255-character identification-string limit. The relevant alignment is the parser shape: OpenSSH permits bounded pre-banner lines when reading a server banner as a client, but rejects pre-banner lines when acting as a server and reading a client identification string.
The russh fix follows that shape: accept bounded pre-banner lines only where the protocol allows them, and reject malformed or excessive identification input early.
PoC
Inline highest-CVSS PoC: unauthenticated remote client pre-banner input to the server identification parser. This demonstrates AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N.
#[tokio::test]
async fn poc_server_accepts_client_pre_banner_before_ssh_id() {
use russh::server;
use tokio::io::{AsyncReadExt, AsyncWriteExt};
let config = std::sync::Arc::new(server::Config::default());
let (mut client, server_stream) = tokio::io::duplex(4096);
let server = tokio::spawn(async move {
server::run_stream(config, server_stream, NoAuthHandler).await
});
let mut server_id = Vec::new();
client.read_until(b'\n', &mut server_id).await.unwrap();
client
.write_all(b"attacker-controlled pre-banner\r\nSSH-2.0-poc\r\n")
.await
.unwrap();
let result = tokio::time::timeout(std::time::Duration::from_millis(250), server).await;
assert!(
result.is_err(),
"vulnerable code keeps processing after accepting a client pre-banner before SSH identification"
);
}
On vulnerable code, the server-side reader accepts the client pre-banner line and continues instead of rejecting the malformed identification input promptly. The fixed parser rejects client pre-banner lines on the server path.
Impact
Suggested CVSS v3.1:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L- Score:
5.3
Reasoning:
AV:N: reachable over the SSH transport connectionAC:L: no special race or unusual setup is requiredPR:N,UI:N: occurs before authentication and needs no user interactionC:N,I:N: no confidentiality or integrity impact demonstratedA:L: malformed identification input can consume connection setup resources until rejected by timeout or external limits
Additional impact investigation did not identify a stronger confidentiality, integrity, downgrade, or code-execution primitive. The accepted client pre-banner line is discarded before key exchange and does not become part of remote_sshid; the final client identification string is what feeds the key-exchange transcript. remote_sshid is otherwise exposed to library handlers and debug formatting, but the discarded pre-banner text does not influence authentication state, strict-kex negotiation, KEX algorithm selection, or later packet framing.
One parser-boundary nuance on vulnerable code is that behavior can depend on read chunking: if a client pre-banner line and the real SSH identification line are delivered in the same read, the old parser can discard the buffered identification line and then wait or disconnect; if delivered separately, the old server path can accept the pre-banner and continue. This supports malformed pre-authentication availability impact, but not a demonstrated confidentiality or integrity impact.
Fix / Patch Direction
Use a stricter server-side client-identification reader, enforce the RFC identification-line length, and cap preliminary banner lines. The server path should reject client pre-banner lines instead of treating them like allowed server pre-identification text.
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| russh | >= 0.34.0-beta.1, < 0.61.0 |
0.61.0 |
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 → 0.61.0
- cargo
cargo update -p russh --precise 0.61.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
- Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- 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. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
- Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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