Skip to content

GHSA-j7h2-66j4-ghjf CVE-2026-111062

A russh SSH server accepts a publickey authentication whose signature uses a different algorithm than the one named in the request

Low crates.io
Severity
0.0 / 10
Low · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
—
No score published
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-347 Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature
Fix
0.64.0
Upgrade russh to this version or later

Description

Details

In russh/src/server/encrypted.rs, server_read_auth_request_pk (0.63.3, around lines 880-990):

  • The requested algorithm name (pubkey_algo) is read and only used to decode the key: PublicKeyOrCertificate::decode(&pubkey_algo, &pubkey_key). The derived hash_alg is then dropped (PublicKeyOrCertificate::PublicKey { ref key, .. }).
  • The signature blob is decoded (Signature::decode) and verified with Verifier::verify(&pubkey, &buf, &sig). ssh-key picks the hash from the signature's own algorithm (sig.algorithm()).
  • pubkey_algo and sig.algorithm() are never compared.

So for an RSA key, the request can say rsa-sha2-512 while the signature is ssh-rsa. The signature is valid for SHA-1, verification succeeds, and Handler::auth_publickey is called.

Affected versions: every russh release, from the first (0.34.0-beta.1, 2022-03) through 0.63.3 and current main. The behaviour is inherited from thrussh, which russh was forked from.

The mechanism changed over time, but the outcome is the same: the hash is always taken from the signature blob, never checked against the request.

  • Up to 0.46: after reading the algorithm name inside the signature blob, russh overwrites the key's hash with it (pubkey.set_algorithm(algo_)), then verifies.
  • From 0.47/0.48 (move to ssh-key): the signature is decoded with its own algorithm (sig_workaround::Sig::decode, later Signature::decode) and verified with it.

Confirmed by running the PoC below on 0.63.3. Confirmed by reading the code of server/encrypted.rs in 0.34.0-beta.1, 0.34.0, 0.36.0, 0.36.1, 0.37.1, 0.40.2, 0.43.0, 0.45.0, 0.46.0, 0.48.2, 0.50.4, 0.54.6, 0.58.1, 0.63.1, 0.63.3 and main (2026-09-30), and in thrussh 0.33.5.

PoC

A unit test in the existing test module of russh/src/server/encrypted.rs. It uses the module's own helpers (test_auth_session, sign_with_hash_alg, PrivateKeyWithHashAlg) and needs no network or configuration.

  1. Check out russh 0.63.3, or main.
  2. Paste the code below inside mod tests { ... } of russh/src/server/encrypted.rs.
  3. Run cargo test --lib poc_sha1.
// ---- PoC: signature algorithm not checked against the requested one ----

/// Records whether `auth_publickey` (called only after the signature
/// verified) was reached.
#[derive(Default)]
struct AcceptAnyKey {
    authenticated: bool,
}

impl Handler for AcceptAnyKey {
    type Error = Error;

    async fn auth_publickey_offered(
        &mut self,
        _user: &str,
        _public_key: &PublicKey,
    ) -> Result<Auth, Self::Error> {
        Ok(Auth::Accept)
    }

    async fn auth_publickey(
        &mut self,
        _user: &str,
        _public_key: &PublicKey,
    ) -> Result<Auth, Self::Error> {
        self.authenticated = true;
        Ok(Auth::Accept)
    }
}

/// A signed publickey request that names `announced` as its public key
/// algorithm, but is signed with `hash` (`None` = `ssh-rsa`, SHA-1).
fn signed_request_announcing(
    user: &str,
    private_key: Arc<PrivateKey>,
    announced: &str,
    hash: Option<crate::keys::HashAlg>,
) -> Vec<u8> {
    let mut packet = Vec::new();
    packet.push(msg::USERAUTH_REQUEST);
    user.encode(&mut packet).unwrap();
    "ssh-connection".encode(&mut packet).unwrap();
    "publickey".encode(&mut packet).unwrap();
    1u8.encode(&mut packet).unwrap();
    announced.encode(&mut packet).unwrap();
    private_key.public_key().to_bytes().unwrap().encode(&mut packet).unwrap();

    let mut signed = Vec::new();
    CryptoVec::new().as_ref().encode(&mut signed).unwrap();
    signed.extend_from_slice(&packet);
    let signature =
        sign_with_hash_alg(&PrivateKeyWithHashAlg::new(private_key, hash), &signed).unwrap();
    signature.encode(&mut packet).unwrap();
    packet
}

#[tokio::test]
async fn poc_sha1_signature_accepted_when_rsa_sha2_512_is_announced() {
    let rsa = ssh_key::private::RsaKeypair::random(&mut rand::rng(), 2048).unwrap();
    let private = Arc::new(PrivateKey::from(rsa));
    let mut session = test_auth_session();
    let mut handler = AcceptAnyKey::default();

    // The request says rsa-sha2-512; the signature blob is ssh-rsa (SHA-1).
    let packet = signed_request_announcing("alice", private, "rsa-sha2-512", None);
    session.process_packet(&mut handler, &packet).await.unwrap();

    // RFC 8332 §3: the signature algorithm must be the requested one, so
    // this request must be rejected. On russh 0.63.3 it is accepted.
    assert!(
        !handler.authenticated,
        "an ssh-rsa (SHA-1) signature was accepted for a request announcing rsa-sha2-512"
    );
}

Result on unmodified 0.63.3:

test server::encrypted::tests::poc_sha1_signature_accepted_when_rsa_sha2_512_is_announced ... FAILED
panicked at src/server/encrypted.rs: an ssh-rsa (SHA-1) signature was accepted for a request announcing rsa-sha2-512

With the fix below, the test passes and the whole library suite still passes: cargo test --lib gives 186 passed.

Suggested fix: reject a mismatch through the existing reject_auth_request(until, ...) path, so the constant rejection time is kept.

--- a/russh/src/server/encrypted.rs
+++ b/russh/src/server/encrypted.rs
@@ -1023,6 +1023,21 @@
                     map_err!(ensure_end(&signature_reader))?;
                     map_err!(ensure_end(r))?;
 
+                    // RFC 8332 §3: the signature must use the algorithm the
+                    // request names.
+                    let offered_algorithm = match pk_or_cert {
+                        PublicKeyOrCertificate::PublicKey { .. } => ssh_key::Algorithm::new(&pubkey_algo),
+                        PublicKeyOrCertificate::Certificate(_) => {
+                            <ssh_key::Algorithm as crate::helpers::AlgorithmExt>::new_certificate_ext(&pubkey_algo)
+                        }
+                    };
+                    if offered_algorithm.ok().as_ref() != Some(&sig.algorithm()) {
+                        debug!("signature algorithm does not match the requested one");
+                        auth_user.clear();
+                        reject_auth_request(until, &mut self.write, auth_request).await?;
+                        return Ok(());
+                    }
+
                     let is_valid = if accepted_probe_matches && user == auth_user {
                         true
                     } else {

Impact

This is a missing check on the signature algorithm (improper verification of a cryptographic signature's algorithm, CWE-347) in the server's publickey authentication.

Who is impacted: applications that use russh as an SSH server and rely on the requested algorithm to restrict, record or audit user-key signature algorithms. For example:

  • a server that refuses SHA-1 (ssh-rsa) signatures, as OpenSSH does by default since 8.8;
  • a server that logs which algorithm a client authenticated with.

Such a server can be made to accept a SHA-1 signature, or to record rsa-sha2-512 for one, by any holder of a valid RSA key.

Not impacted:

  • russh clients;
  • authentication strength beyond the choice of hash, since a valid signature by the private key is still required;
  • Te RSA keys were examined, the case where one key admits several signature algorithms (ssh-rsa, rsa-sha2-256, rsa-sha2-512). We did not test other key types.

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
russh
>= 0.34.0-beta.1, < 0.64.0
0.64.0

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 → 0.64.0

cargo
cargo update -p russh --precise 0.64.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
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-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
GHSA-47hw-gvq5-r2gm
russh: Client-side channel-scoped Handler callbacks fire for channel IDs the client never opened
High 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