Skip to content

GHSA-g9hv-x236-4qp3 CVE-2026-73429

Russh: client wrong-length X25519 `clone_from_slice` panic (pre-auth DoS)

Medium crates.io
Severity
5.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.51%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 43.26% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-704 Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast
CWE-754 Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions
Fix
0.62.4
Upgrade russh to this version or later

Description

Summary

A malicious SSH server can crash a russh client session with a single malformed key-exchange reply, causing a pre-authentication Denial-of-Service before the server host key is verified. The embedding process itself stays up, but the connection is killed deterministically.

Details

Every other kex path in russh validates the peer ephemeral length before cloning:

  • Curve25519Kex::server_dh (russh/src/kex/curve25519.rs:61-65) checks if pubkey_len != 32 { return Err(crate::Error::Kex); } before clone_from_slice.
  • The hybrid ML-KEM, ECDH-NIST, and DH/GEX paths all validate lengths.

Only the client-side curve25519 compute_shared_secret is missing the check. This asymmetric validation gap makes the bug easy to miss in code review: a malicious client cannot panic a russh server this way (the server path checks the length), but a malicious server can panic a russh client.

Incriminated source code (repo-relative paths):

  • Vulnerable compute_shared_secret: russh/src/kex/curve25519.rs:110-117 (panic at line 113)
  • Client-side entry point: russh/src/client/kex.rs:266-277 (KEX_ECDH_REPLY → Bytes::decode → compute_shared_secret)
  • Server-side contrast (has the length check): russh/src/kex/curve25519.rs:51-88 (server_dh)
  • Session spawn site: russh/src/client/mod.rs (connect_stream → russh_util::runtime::spawn)
  • Runtime wrapper: russh-util/src/runtime.rs:37-48 (spawn wraps tokio::spawn; panic surfaces as JoinError)

PoC

A standalone, self-contained Cargo PoC is provided in vuln_poc/vuln_002_client_wronglen_x25519_panic/ in this repo. It installs a global panic hook that sets an AtomicBool if any panic fires, starts a malicious raw SSH server on 127.0.0.1:0 that completes the SSH id and KEXINIT exchange, reads the client KEX_ECDH_INIT, and sends KEX_ECDH_REPLY with a 16-byte server ephemeral (instead of 32) and a fake signature. It then calls russh::client::connect with Preferred::kex set to curve25519-sha256 and a handler that accepts any server key (the check is never reached because the client panics first) and prints a clear verdict.

Build & run:

cd vuln_poc/vuln_002_client_wronglen_x25519_panic
cargo run --release

Expected output (verdict line, from a successful reproduction):

[poc] panic captured: panicked at russh/src/kex/curve25519.rs:113:25:
  copy_from_slice: source slice length (16) does not match destination slice length (32)
[!] Vulnerability reproduced: russh client panicked in Curve25519Kex::compute_shared_secret
  on a wrong-length (16-byte) server ephemeral before verifying the host key signature
  (pre-auth client DoS).

The malicious payload is the f field of KEX_ECDH_REPLY:

MSG_KEX_ECDH_REPLY (1 byte, value 0x1f)
  string K_S            (server host key blob — any valid-looking bytes)
  string f              (server ephemeral — 16 bytes of 0x00 instead of 32)
  string signature      (fake; never verified by the client)

The length prefix of f is 4 (u32 BE) = 16, followed by 16 bytes. The russh client decodes this into exchange.server_ephemeral (a Vec<u8> of length 16) and passes it to compute_shared_secret, which panics on clone_from_slice.

Impact

What kind of vulnerability: CWE-704 (incorrect type conversion / cast — clone_from_slice length mismatch) → deterministic panic → pre-authentication per-connection Denial-of-Service. The attacker does not need the server's private key; any network position that can deliver a malformed KEX_ECDH_REPLY (a rogue server, or a MitM before authentication) suffices.

Who is impacted: any deployment that uses russh::client::connect (or connect_stream) to connect to an attacker-controlled or MitM-reachable SSH server, and that negotiates curve25519-sha256 (the default and most-preferred kex algorithm in russh). A single malformed KEX_ECDH_REPLY kills the client session; the attack is deterministic and single-packet. The panic is isolated to the spawned session task (tokio::spawn catches it and surfaces a JoinError), so the embedding process keeps running — the impact is per-connection DoS, not process crash, unless the embedder installs a custom panic hook that calls std::process::abort.

Workaround: until a fix is released, clients can reduce exposure by disabling curve25519-sha256 in the Preferred::kex list and preferring a kex algorithm whose peer-ephemeral length is validated (e.g. the ECDH-NIST or DH/GEX paths). This is a mitigation, not a fix.

Suggested fix (one-line length check, mirrors the existing server-side server_dh check):

// russh/src/kex/curve25519.rs, at the top of compute_shared_secret:
fn compute_shared_secret(&mut self, remote_pubkey_: &[u8]) -> Result<(), crate::Error> {
    if remote_pubkey_.len() != 32 {
        return Err(crate::Error::Kex);
    }
    let local_secret = self.local_secret.take().ok_or(crate::Error::KexInit)?;
    let mut remote_pubkey = MontgomeryPoint([0; 32]);
    remote_pubkey.0.clone_from_slice(remote_pubkey_);
    let shared = local_secret * remote_pubkey;
    self.shared_secret = Some(shared);
    Ok(())
}

This makes the client-side compute_shared_secret consistent with the existing server-side server_dh check at russh/src/kex/curve25519.rs:61-65 and with the other kex paths that already validate peer ephemeral lengths.

vuln_poc.zip

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
russh
< 0.62.4
0.62.4

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 → 0.62.4

cargo
cargo update -p russh --precise 0.62.4

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-704: Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast

The product does not correctly convert an object, resource, or structure from one type to a different type.

CWE-754: Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions

The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Choose languages with features such as exception handling that force the programmer to anticipate unusual conditions that may generate exceptions. Custom exceptions may need to be developed to handle unusual business-logic conditions. Be careful not to pass sensitive exceptions back to the user (CWE-209, CWE-248).
  • Implementation: Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
  • Implementation: If using exception handling, catch and throw specific exceptions instead of overly-general exceptions (CWE-396, CWE-397). Catch and handle exceptions as locally as possible so that exceptions do not propagate too far up the call stack (CWE-705). Avoid unchecked or uncaught exceptions where feasible (CWE-248).
  • Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. Exposing additional information to a potential attacker in the context of an exceptional condition can help the attacker determine what attack vectors are most likely to succeed beyond DoS.
  • 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, 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.
  • Architecture and Design: Use system limits, which should help to prevent resource exhaustion. However, the product should still handle low resource conditions since they may still occur.

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