Skip to content

GHSA-p8qx-h547-fjw9 CVE-2026-102822

russh: negotiating a MAC-requiring block cipher (CTR/CBC) with mac=none causes a slice-index-out-of-range panic

Low crates.io
Severity
3.7 / 10
Low · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.33%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 25.77% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-129 Improper Validation of Array Index
Fix
0.63.1
Upgrade russh to this version or later

Description

Summary

SshBlockCipher implementations (AES-CBC, AES-CTR, 3DES-CBC, etc.) report needs_mac() == true, meaning they are documented/intended to always be paired with a separate integrity MAC. However, key-exchange negotiation only checks needs_mac() inside the fallback branch of MAC algorithm selection (used when no common MAC algorithm exists). If both peers' preferred MAC lists simply contain none and it is successfully negotiated through the normal selection path, nothing rejects pairing none with a cipher that requires a MAC. Once negotiated, a single crafted packet from either peer causes cipher::read() to shrink an already-allocated buffer below the number of bytes it is about to index, causing a Rust slice-index-out-of-range panic and killing that connection's task.

Details

In russh/src/cipher/mod.rs, read() for a block cipher:

  1. Reads packet_length_to_read_for_block_length() bytes up front (16 bytes for any SshBlockCipher) into buffer.buffer.
  2. Decrypts the first block to recover the plaintext packet-length field len.
  3. Computes buffer.len = len + cipher.tag_len().
  4. Calls buffer.buffer.resize(buffer.len + 4, 0).
  5. Immediately indexes buffer.buffer[16..] (via the constant used for the first block read) to continue decrypting/reading the rest of the packet.

When the negotiated MAC is none, tag_len() == 0. If the attacker (or a MITM holding the session key, or simply the accepting peer testing a hostile client) sends a packet whose decrypted length field is 0, then buffer.len = 0 and resize(0 + 4, 0) shrinks the buffer that was already grown to 16 bytes in step 1 down to 4 bytes. The subsequent slice operation buffer.buffer[16..] then panics with range start index 16 out of range for slice of length 4.

The file already defines a MINIMUM_PACKET_LEN constant, but it is only consulted on the write/padding side, never on the read path — so nothing prevents an incoming packet from declaring a length shorter than the bytes already buffered.

Negotiation gap: negotiation.rs's Select MAC-selection logic only special-cases needs_mac() when negotiation would otherwise fail (no common MAC), substituting none only if the cipher does not need one. It never re-validates the case where none is a common/successfully-negotiated MAC on both sides regardless of what the chosen cipher requires. So an application (or a malicious peer, since negotiation is attacker-influenced on one side) that includes none in its own preferred MAC list — while still allowing the default CTR/CBC cipher suite — ends up with an invalid, panic-inducing combination that the library itself should refuse.

PoC

  1. Configure one side's Preferred config to include mac::NONE in the MAC list (this is a supported, non-default configuration exposed by the crate's public Preferred API — used e.g. for legacy/interop compatibility), while leaving the default cipher list (which includes aes256-ctr/aes256-cbc) untouched.
  2. Complete a normal key exchange; negotiation lands on {cipher: aes*-ctr (or -cbc), mac: none} because none is present and preferred/common on both sides, and nothing during negotiation rejects this pairing.
  3. From the peer, send one transport packet whose decrypted packet-length field is 0 (trivial to construct once the session keys are known to that peer, or for the peer that legitimately owns the connection to simply hand-craft, e.g. a modified client for testing).
  4. cipher::read() on the receiving side panics: range start index 16 out of range for slice of length 4.
  5. Because each connection is handled in its own tokio::spawn'ed task (see the per-connection select! loop that calls into cipher::read()), the panic unwinds only that task by default, but it unconditionally terminates that SSH connection/session — a working, currently-unauthenticated, already-established connection is killed with no attacker interaction beyond the one crafted packet, and the check runs on every inbound packet including pre-auth ones.

Impact

Denial of service: a remote peer that can influence MAC preference negotiation (or a MITM in possession of the session key) can crash any individual SSH connection/session that ends up negotiating a block cipher together with mac=none, with a single crafted packet, pre-authentication. This does not affect the process as a whole (panic is scoped to that connection's task under panic=unwind), and does require a non-default configuration that permits none as a preferred MAC — hence Low severity.

Suggested fix

In the MAC-selection logic in negotiation.rs, reject (or force substitution of) mac::NONE whenever the negotiated cipher's needs_mac() is true, regardless of how none came to be selected — not only in the "no common MAC" fallback branch. Defensively, cipher::read() could also refuse to shrink a buffer below the number of bytes already consumed for the length-field block, returning a protocol error instead of resizing blindly.

For credit/changelog purposes, please use: Yazan Balawneh, Cystack.ps

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
russh
< 0.63.1
0.63.1

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 → 0.63.1

cargo
cargo update -p russh --precise 0.63.1

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 3.7

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

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

Weakness

CWE-129: Improper Validation of Array Index

The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.

How to prevent it
  • 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: 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.
  • Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, Ada allows the programmer to constrain the values of a variable and languages such as Java and Ruby will allow the programmer to handle exceptions when an out-of-bounds index is accessed.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking. For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
  • Operation: Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment. For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
  • 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. When accessing a user-controlled array index, use a stringent range of values that are within the target array. Make sure that you do not allow negative values to be used. That is, verify the minimum as well as the maximum of the range of acceptable values.
  • 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.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

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