Skip to content

GO-2026-6303 CVE-2026-56854

Source-address critical option not enforced for non-public-key auth callbacks in golang.org/x/crypto/ssh

High Go
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.44%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 38.02% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
0.55.0
Upgrade golang.org/x/crypto to this version or later

Description

The source-address critical option in the Permissions returned by an authentication callback was only enforced for the PublicKeyCallback and VerifiedPublicKeyCallback paths, extending the fix for CVE-2026-46595. Permissions returned by the PasswordCallback, KeyboardInteractiveCallback, NoClientAuthCallback, and GSSAPIWithMICConfig.AllowLogin callbacks were not validated against the client's remote address, so a source-address restriction set by those callbacks was silently ignored. The check is now applied to the Permissions returned by any authentication callback.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
golang.org/x/crypto
< 0.55.0
0.55.0

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.

golang.org/x/crypto Go → 0.55.0

go
go get golang.org/x/crypto@v0.55.0 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GO-2026-6355
Prevent DoS on deadlocked established channel in golang.org/x/crypto/ssh
High Also affects golang.org/x/crypto
GO-2026-6354
Prevent DoS on deadlocked undecided channel in golang.org/x/crypto/ssh
High Also affects golang.org/x/crypto
GO-2026-5932
The golang.org/x/crypto/openpgp package is unmaintained, unsafe by design, and has known security issues
Not rated yet Also affects golang.org/x/crypto
GHSA-x527-x647-q7gg
golang.org/x/crypto: Invoking VerifiedPublicKeyCallback permissions skip enforcement
Critical Also affects golang.org/x/crypto
GHSA-w879-237q-wc7r
golang.org/x/crypto: Invoking pathological RSA/DSA parameters may cause DoS
High Also affects golang.org/x/crypto
GHSA-vgwf-h737-ff37
golang.org/x/crypto: Invoking client can cause server deadlock on unexpected responses
Critical Also affects golang.org/x/crypto
GHSA-rm3j-f69w-wqmq
golang.org/x/crypto vulnerable to infinite loop on large channel writes
Critical Also affects golang.org/x/crypto
GHSA-qpw4-5x99-6vjp
golang.org/x/crypto: Invoking memory leak when rejecting channels can lead to DoS
Medium Also affects golang.org/x/crypto

Credits: Longwei Wang (@gn00295120)

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