Skip to content

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

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published Oct 4, 2026 in Eugeny/russh • Updated Oct 19, 2026

Package

cargo russh (Rust)

Affected versions

>= 0.34.0-beta.1, < 0.64.0

Patched versions

0.64.0

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.

References

@Eugeny Eugeny published to Eugeny/russh Oct 4, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 19, 2026
Reviewed Oct 19, 2026
Last updated Oct 19, 2026

Severity

Low

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity High
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity Low
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
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

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-111062

GHSA ID

GHSA-j7h2-66j4-ghjf

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.