CVE-2026-111062

CVE-2026-111062 is a low-severity security vulnerability in russh (rust), affecting versions >= 0.34.0-beta.1, < 0.64.0. It is fixed in 0.64.0.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

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

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

russh (>= 0.34.0-beta.1, < 0.64.0)

Security releases

russh → 0.64.0 (rust)

Kodem intelligence

Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.

Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.

Already deployed Kodem?

See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →

Remediation advice

Upgrade russh to 0.64.0 or later to resolve this vulnerability.

Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is CVE-2026-111062? CVE-2026-111062 is a low-severity security vulnerability in russh (rust), affecting versions >= 0.34.0-beta.1, < 0.64.0. It is fixed in 0.64.0.
  2. Which versions of russh are affected by CVE-2026-111062? russh (rust) versions >= 0.34.0-beta.1, < 0.64.0 is affected.
  3. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-111062? Yes. CVE-2026-111062 is fixed in 0.64.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
  4. Is CVE-2026-111062 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-111062 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
  5. What actually determines whether CVE-2026-111062 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
  6. How do I fix CVE-2026-111062? Upgrade russh to 0.64.0 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in russh

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.