GHSA-g9f8-wqj9-fjw5 CVE-2026-46673 RUSTSEC-2026-0153 RUSTSEC-2026-0154
Russh: Unchecked CryptoVec allocation and growth handling is reachable
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.26%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 18.13% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Title
Unchecked CryptoVec allocation and growth handling was reachable from local agent inputs in current russh releases and from remote SSH traffic in historical pre-0.58.0 releases
Summary
CryptoVec used unchecked capacity growth, unchecked length arithmetic, and unsafe allocation/locking paths. In current russh releases, local SSH agent peers could still feed attacker-controlled frame lengths into buffer growth before validation. In older russh releases before 0.58.0, remote SSH traffic also reached CryptoVec through transport and compression buffers.
Details
The underlying unsafe paths were in CryptoVec:
cryptovec/src/cryptovec.rs- unchecked capacity growth
- unchecked length arithmetic in growth callers
- raw allocation and reallocation paths coupled to those sizes
cryptovec/src/platform/unix.rsmlock/munlockpreviously accepted zero-length calls and performed null-pointer validation inside theunsafeOS-call path
There are two relevant reachability stories:
- current local reachability in
russh
russh/src/keys/agent/client.rsAgentClient::read_response()read a peer-suppliedu32length and then resizedself.bufto that value before reading the payload
russh/src/keys/agent/server.rsConnection::run()read a peer-suppliedu32length and then resizedself.bufto that value before reading the payload
This is the path that still existed in current 0.60.x releases before the fix, although by then those buffers were no longer CryptoVec.
- historical remote reachability in older
russh
- before commit
712e32b(first released inv0.58.0), non-secret transport and compression buffers inrusshstill usedCryptoVec - I verified this in a detached pre-
712e32bworktree by adding and running:cipher::tests::remote_packet_length_grows_transport_cryptovec_buffercompression::tests::remote_compressed_payload_expands_cryptovec_output
- those tests show that remote SSH traffic could grow
CryptoVecthrough:- transport packet reads
- zlib decompression output
Also added a constrained-memory reproduction in that historical worktree:
compression::tests::remote_compressed_payload_can_crash_under_memory_limit
That test re-execs the test binary under prlimit --as=134217728, decompresses a highly compressible payload that expands to 96 MiB, and reliably aborts in the old Unix CryptoVec path when NonNull::new_unchecked() receives a null pointer after allocation failure.
The prepared patch does two things:
-
hardens
CryptoVecitself- checked capacity growth
- checked length arithmetic
- immediate allocation-failure handling
- zero-length
mlock/munlockno-ops - explicit null-pointer validation before entering the Unix
unsafelocking calls
-
hardens the real untrusted-input path
- caps agent frame lengths at
256 * 1024on both client and server before resizing buffers
- caps agent frame lengths at
This cap matches OpenSSH’s agent framing guardrail.
PoC
The following end-to-end tests demonstrate the real untrusted-input path by feeding oversized peer-controlled agent frame lengths into the public client and server flows and asserting that they are rejected before buffer growth.
Client-side agent reply path:
#[test]
fn oversized_agent_response_is_rejected_before_allocation() -> std::io::Result<()> {
let runtime = tokio::runtime::Builder::new_current_thread()
.enable_all()
.build()?;
runtime.block_on(async {
let (mut writer, reader) = tokio::io::duplex(64);
let server = tokio::spawn(async move {
let mut frame = [0u8; 4];
writer.read_exact(&mut frame).await?;
let len = BigEndian::read_u32(&frame) as usize;
let mut body = vec![0; len];
writer.read_exact(&mut body).await?;
BigEndian::write_u32(&mut frame, (MAX_AGENT_FRAME_LEN + 1) as u32);
writer.write_all(&frame).await?;
Ok::<(), std::io::Error>(())
});
let mut client = AgentClient::connect(reader);
let err = client.request_identities().await.unwrap_err();
assert!(matches!(err, Error::AgentProtocolError));
server.await.expect("server task")?;
Ok::<(), std::io::Error>(())
})?;
Ok(())
}
Server-side agent request path:
#[test]
fn oversized_agent_request_is_rejected_before_allocation() -> std::io::Result<()> {
let runtime = tokio::runtime::Builder::new_current_thread()
.enable_all()
.build()?;
runtime.block_on(async {
let (server, mut client) = tokio::io::duplex(64);
let connection = Connection {
lock: Lock(std::sync::Arc::new(std::sync::RwLock::new(crate::CryptoVec::new()))),
keys: KeyStore(std::sync::Arc::new(std::sync::RwLock::new(
std::collections::HashMap::new(),
))),
agent: Some(()),
s: server,
buf: Vec::new(),
};
let server = tokio::spawn(async move { connection.run().await });
let mut frame = [0u8; 4];
BigEndian::write_u32(&mut frame, (MAX_AGENT_FRAME_LEN + 1) as u32);
client.write_all(&frame).await?;
drop(client);
let err = server.await.expect("server task").unwrap_err();
assert!(matches!(err, Error::AgentProtocolError));
Ok::<(), std::io::Error>(())
})?;
Ok(())
}
These tests pass on the fixed branch and fail on unfixed v0.60.2, where oversized agent frame lengths are not rejected at the framing boundary.
For historical russh < 0.58.0, I also verified remote reachability into CryptoVec in a detached pre-712e32b worktree (91d431d, package version 0.57.1).
Transport packet read path:
#[test]
fn remote_packet_length_grows_transport_cryptovec_buffer() -> std::io::Result<()> {
let runtime = tokio::runtime::Builder::new_current_thread()
.enable_all()
.build()?;
runtime.block_on(async {
let packet_len = MAXIMUM_PACKET_LEN;
let (mut writer, mut reader) = tokio::io::duplex(packet_len + 4);
let writer_task = tokio::spawn(async move {
let mut packet = vec![0u8; packet_len + 4];
packet[..4].copy_from_slice(&(packet_len as u32).to_be_bytes());
writer.write_all(&packet).await?;
Ok::<(), std::io::Error>(())
});
let mut buffer = SSHBuffer::new();
let mut cipher = clear::Key;
let n = read(&mut reader, &mut buffer, &mut cipher).await.unwrap();
assert_eq!(n, packet_len + 4);
assert_eq!(buffer.buffer.len(), packet_len + 4);
assert_eq!(&buffer.buffer[..4], &(packet_len as u32).to_be_bytes());
writer_task.await.expect("writer task")?;
Ok::<(), std::io::Error>(())
})?;
Ok(())
}
Compression growth path:
#[test]
fn remote_compressed_payload_expands_cryptovec_output() {
let payload = vec![b'A'; 64 * 1024];
let compression = Compression::new(&ZLIB);
let mut compressor = Compress::None;
let mut decompressor = Decompress::None;
compression.init_compress(&mut compressor);
compression.init_decompress(&mut decompressor);
let mut compressed = CryptoVec::new();
let encoded = compressor
.compress(&payload, &mut compressed)
.expect("compress")
.to_vec();
let mut output = CryptoVec::new();
let decoded = decompressor
.decompress(&encoded, &mut output)
.expect("decompress");
assert_eq!(decoded.len(), payload.len());
assert_eq!(decoded, payload.as_slice());
assert!(encoded.len() < output.len());
}
Constrained-memory crash reproduction for the historical remote compression path:
#[test]
fn remote_compressed_payload_can_crash_under_memory_limit() {
const CHILD_ENV: &str = "RUSSH_REMOTE_COMPRESS_CRASH_CHILD";
if std::env::var_os(CHILD_ENV).is_some() {
let payload = vec![b'A'; 96 * 1024 * 1024];
let compression = Compression::new(&ZLIB);
let mut compressor = Compress::None;
let mut decompressor = Decompress::None;
compression.init_compress(&mut compressor);
compression.init_decompress(&mut decompressor);
let mut compressed = CryptoVec::new();
let encoded = compressor
.compress(&payload, &mut compressed)
.expect("compress")
.to_vec();
let mut output = CryptoVec::new();
let decoded = decompressor
.decompress(&encoded, &mut output)
.expect("decompress");
assert_eq!(decoded.len(), payload.len());
return;
}
let exe = std::env::current_exe().expect("current exe");
let status = Command::new("prlimit")
.args([
"--as=134217728",
"--",
exe.to_str().expect("utf8 exe path"),
"--exact",
"compression::tests::remote_compressed_payload_can_crash_under_memory_limit",
"--nocapture",
])
.env(CHILD_ENV, "1")
.status()
.expect("spawn child");
assert!(
!status.success(),
"expected child to fail under constrained address space"
);
}
On that historical worktree, the constrained-memory child aborts in the old Unix CryptoVec path with:
unsafe precondition(s) violated: NonNull::new_unchecked requires that the pointer is non-null
thread caused non-unwinding panic. aborting.
To run the reproduced checks:
cargo test -p russh oversized_agent_response_is_rejected_before_allocation -- --nocapture
cargo test -p russh oversized_agent_request_is_rejected_before_allocation -- --nocapture
cargo test -p russh-cryptovec
Historical pre-0.58.0 checks were run from the detached 91d431d worktree with:
cargo test --offline -p russh remote_packet_length_grows_transport_cryptovec_buffer -- --nocapture
cargo test --offline -p russh remote_compressed_payload_expands_cryptovec_output -- --nocapture
cargo test --offline -p russh remote_compressed_payload_can_crash_under_memory_limit -- --nocapture
Impact
This is a memory-safety hardening issue with demonstrated untrusted-input reachability.
What is demonstrated:
- current local agent peers could previously reach allocation growth directly from attacker-controlled frame lengths
- historical remote SSH traffic could previously reach
CryptoVecthrough transport and compression buffers inrussh < 0.58.0 - under constrained memory, the historical remote compression path can be turned into a process abort in the old Unix
CryptoVeccode - the fixed code now rejects oversized agent frames early and hardens the underlying allocation paths
What is not demonstrated:
- practical code execution
- a demonstrated integrity or confidentiality break
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| russh | < 0.60.3 |
0.60.3 |
| russh | >= 0.0.0-0, < 0.60.3 |
0.60.3 |
| russh-cryptovec | < 0.60.3 |
0.60.3 |
| russh-cryptovec | >= 0.0.0-0, < 0.60.3 |
0.60.3 |
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 → 0.60.3
- cargo
cargo update -p russh --precise 0.60.3
russh-cryptovec crates.io → 0.60.3
- cargo
cargo update -p russh-cryptovec --precise 0.60.3
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).
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