CVE-2026-111062
Russh Authentication Algorithm Mismatch Vulnerability
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`. ```rust // ---- 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. ```diff --- 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.
INFO
Published Date :
Oct. 19, 2026, 5:06 p.m.
Last Modified :
Oct. 19, 2026, 5:06 p.m.
Remotely Exploit :
No
Source :
github-security-advisories
Solution
- Compare the requested public key algorithm with the signature's algorithm.
- Reject the request if the algorithms do not match.
- Ensure consistent rejection time for security.
- Update the russh library to the fixed version.
References to Advisories, Solutions, and Tools
Here, you will find a curated list of external links that provide in-depth
information, practical solutions, and valuable tools related to
CVE-2026-111062.
CWE - Common Weakness Enumeration
While CVE identifies
specific instances of vulnerabilities, CWE categorizes the common flaws or
weaknesses that can lead to vulnerabilities. CVE-2026-111062 is
associated with the following CWEs:
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification
(CAPEC)
stores attack patterns, which are descriptions of the common attributes and
approaches employed by adversaries to exploit the CVE-2026-111062
weaknesses.
We scan GitHub repositories to detect new proof-of-concept exploits. Following list is a collection of public exploits and proof-of-concepts, which have been published on GitHub (sorted by the most recently updated).
Results are limited to the first 15 repositories due to potential performance issues.
The following list is the news that have been mention
CVE-2026-111062 vulnerability anywhere in the article.