Skip to content

GHSA-f5v4-2wr6-hqmg CVE-2026-42189

russh has pre-auth DoS via unbounded allocation in its keyboard-interactive auth handler

High crates.io
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.48%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.50% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
CWE-789 Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value
Fix
0.60.1
Upgrade russh to this version or later

Description

Summary

A pre-authentication denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the server's keyboard-interactive authentication handler. A malicious client can crash any russh-based server that implements keyboard-interactive auth (e.g., for 2FA/TOTP) with a single malformed packet, requiring no credentials.

Vulnerability Details

In russh/src/server/encrypted.rs, the function read_userauth_info_response decodes a u32 count from the client's SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_INFO_RESPONSE and passes it directly to Vec::with_capacity():

let n = map_err!(u32::decode(r))?;

// Bound both allocation and iteration by remaining packet data to
// prevent a malicious client from causing a multi-GB allocation or
// billions of loop iterations with a crafted count.
// Each response needs at least 4 bytes (length prefix).
let max_responses = r.remaining_len().saturating_add(3) / 4;
let n = (n as usize).min(max_responses);
let mut responses = Vec::with_capacity(n);
for _ in 0..n {
    responses.push(Bytes::decode(r).ok())
}

An attacker can send n = 0x10000000 (268M) or larger in a minimal packet (~50 bytes after encryption). The server attempts to allocate n * ~24 bytes (size of Option<Bytes>) = ~6.4GB, causing an OOM crash.

Attack Flow

  1. Attacker connects via TCP, completes key exchange (no credentials needed -- this is the anonymous DH handshake, not authentication)
  2. Sends USERAUTH_REQUEST with method keyboard-interactive
  3. Server handler returns Auth::Partial with prompts (standard for 2FA/TOTP)
  4. Attacker sends USERAUTH_INFO_RESPONSE with n = 0x10000000 and no response data
  5. Server calls Vec::with_capacity(268_435_456), OOM killed

No authentication is required. The allocation occurs before the handler validates any credentials. The attack is repeatable faster than the server can restart.

Affected Configurations

Any russh-based server where the Handler::auth_keyboard_interactive implementation returns Auth::Partial (i.e., sends prompts to the client). The default handler returns Auth::reject() and is not affected.

Source code review suggests that downstream projects using keyboard-interactive for multi-step auth (e.g., TOTP/2FA) follow the affected pattern, since returning Auth::Partial before credential verification is the intended API usage for prompting.

Confirmed End-to-End PoC

There is a complete Docker-contained PoC confirming the OOM kill:

  • Minimal russh server returning Auth::Partial for keyboard-interactive
  • Python client (paramiko for key exchange) sends malformed USERAUTH_INFO_RESPONSE
  • Container with 512MB memory limit; server is OOM-killed (exit code 137)

Available on request.

Proposed Fix

Cap the Vec::with_capacity allocation to what the remaining packet data can actually contain. Each response requires at least 4 bytes (length prefix), so:

let n = map_err!(u32::decode(r))?;

// Bound both allocation and iteration by remaining packet data to
// prevent a malicious client from causing a multi-GB allocation or
// billions of loop iterations with a crafted count.
// Each response needs at least 4 bytes (length prefix).
let max_responses = r.remaining_len().saturating_add(3) / 4;
let n = (n as usize).min(max_responses);
let mut responses = Vec::with_capacity(n);
for _ in 0..n {
    responses.push(Bytes::decode(r).ok())
}

This bounds the allocation to at most the packet size (~256KB), while preserving the existing behavior for well-formed packets. This fix has been implemented, tested, and contributed via the temporary private fork.

Severity

Pre-auth, remote, no credentials required, crashes the server process affecting all active sessions.

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
russh
< 0.60.1
0.60.1

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 → 0.60.1

cargo
cargo update -p russh --precise 0.60.1

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

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).

CWE-789: Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value

The product allocates memory based on an untrusted, large size value, but it does not ensure that the size is within expected limits, allowing arbitrary amounts of memory to be allocated.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation, Architecture and Design: Perform adequate input validation against any value that influences the amount of memory that is allocated. Define an appropriate strategy for handling requests that exceed the limit, and consider supporting a configuration option so that the administrator can extend the amount of memory to be used if necessary.
  • Operation: Run your program using system-provided resource limits for memory. This might still cause the program to crash or exit, but the impact to the rest of the system will be minimized.

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