MediumCVE-2026-116774

    Eugeny Russh: Infinite Loop (CVE-2026-116774)

    Published Last modified Sources: OSV, Hersteller, CVE.org

    What is affected, what to do

    Update russh to version 0.65.

    Affected
    • Eugeny Russh gte 0.60.0, < 0.65.0..*

    Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability

    Metrics

    4.3

    Priority

    XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.

    Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v3

    4.3

    CVSS v3

    Severity Medium on the scale from 0 to 10.

    Source: OSV, Hersteller, CVE.org

    0.3 %

    EPSS score

    Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.

    Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 17.7

    Show all metrics
    Severity
    Medium
    Priority (0–325)

    The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?

    Read in glossary
    54.00 Methodology
    Exploit maturity

    An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.

    Read in glossary
    no public PoC known
    XIEM Effective CVSS

    XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command.

    Read in glossary
    4.3 Methodology
    CVSS v3

    CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.

    Read in glossary
    4.3
    EPSS score

    The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.

    Read in glossary
    0.3 %
    Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
    EPSS percentile

    The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.

    Read in glossary
    17.7
    Elevated — this CVE ranks above at least 10% of all CVEs scored today.
    KEV status

    The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.

    Read in glossary
    —
    Published
    CISA assessment (SSVC)
    Exploitation: none known · not automatable · Technical impact: partial
    Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 28 October 2026
    CWE

    CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect.

    Read in glossary
    CWE-400, CWE-835

    Detection rules

    No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.

    Classification under NIS2 and CRA

    Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.

    NIS2

    NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.

    Read in glossary
    Handle the vulnerability in regular vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2.
    CRA

    The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.

    Read in glossary
    From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
    ISO/IEC 27001

    ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.

    Read in glossary
    Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.

    Description

    Summary

    A peer can advertise maximum packet size = 0 in its channel-open message (CHANNEL_OPEN when attacking a server, CHANNEL_OPEN_CONFIRMATION when attacking a client). russh accepts the value without validation and copies it into the channel write state, where it caps the size of every outgoing data chunk. In the AsyncWrite code path (ChannelTx::poll_writable, used by Channel::data(), Channel::make_writer() and Channel::into_stream()), a cap of 0 makes every write future stay Poll::Pending forever: writable = max_packet_size.min(window_size).min(buf_len) is always 0, and no future event can ever raise it (a static maximum packet size of 0 can never be satisfied by any amount of peer-granted window). The write neither completes nor errors, so the application task hangs silently.

    Every other write path in russh already treats max_packet_size == 0 as an error (Error::Inconsistent): Channel::reserve_writable_chunk (russh/src/channels/mod.rs:363-365) and the session packetizers (russh/src/session.rs:489-492 and 549-552). The AsyncWrite path is the only one that lacks the guard - it contradicts the crate's own invariant.

    Root cause

    (1) Peer value accepted without validation:

    • russh/src/parsing.rs:44 (OpenChannelMessage::parse): let maxpacket = map_err!(u32::decode(r))?; stored as recipient_maximum_packet_size (:25-30); no range check. Same for ChannelOpenConfirmation::decode at russh/src/parsing.rs:194-207.
    • The only packet-size validation anywhere is an upper bound on the local config that merely logs (russh/src/client/mod.rs:1189-1194, russh/src/server/mod.rs:912-917). Nothing validates the peer's value - 0 passes silently.

    (2) The value flows into the channel write state verbatim:

    • Server: russh/src/server/encrypted.rs:1877-1900 - ChannelParams { recipient_maximum_packet_size: msg.recipient_maximum_packet_size, .. }, then Channel::new(..., channel_params.recipient_maximum_packet_size, ...).
    • Client: russh/src/client/encrypted.rs:471-488 - parameters.confirm(&msg) (russh/src/lib_inner.rs:519-523) and ChannelMsg::Open { max_packet_size: msg.maximum_packet_size, .. }, consumed by wait_channel_confirmation (russh/src/client/mod.rs:698-722), which builds ChannelWriteHalf { max_packet_size, .. }.
    • The write half hands the value to the writer: make_writer_ext (russh/src/channels/mod.rs:433-441) and into_stream (russh/src/channels/mod.rs:661-670) pass self.max_packet_size to ChannelTx::new.

    (3) The hang - russh/src/channels/io/tx.rs:82-108 (current v0.64.1, byte-identical in v0.60.0):

    fn poll_writable(&mut self, cx: &mut Context<'_>, buf_len: usize) -> Poll<NonZeroUsize> {
        ...
        let writable = (self.max_packet_size).min(*window_size).min(buf_len as u32) as usize;
        match NonZeroUsize::try_from(writable) {
            Ok(w) => {
                *window_size -= writable as u32;
                if *window_size > 0 {
                    self.notify.notify_one();
                }
                Poll::Ready(w)
            }
            Err(_) => {
                drop(window_size);
                ready!(self.window_size_notication.poll_unpin(cx));
                self.window_size_notication = WatchNotification::new(Arc::clone(&self.notify));
                cx.waker().wake_by_ref();
                Poll::Pending
            }
        }
    }
    

    With max_packet_size == 0, writable is always 0 regardless of window_size and buf_len; the task parks on the window notification, gets re-polled on every CHANNEL_WINDOW_ADJUST, recomputes 0, and parks again - forever.

    (4) The guard exists everywhere else:

    // russh/src/channels/mod.rs:363-365 (used by send_bytes -> data_bytes / extended_data_bytes)
    if self.max_packet_size == 0 {
        return Err(Error::Inconsistent);
    }
    
    // russh/src/session.rs:490-492 and :550-552 (packetizer)
    if max_packet_size == 0 {
        return Err(crate::Error::Inconsistent);
    }
    

    Note that Channel::data(reader) (russh/src/channels/mod.rs:321-323) goes through send_data -> tokio::io::copy(&mut data, &mut tx) (:350-360) into the same ChannelTx, so the primary documented data API hangs as well; only the *_bytes variants reach the guard.

    Attack scenarios

    • Server (authenticated remote DoS): with the default configuration, an authenticated client opens a session channel advertising maximum packet size = 0. Whenever the server application writes on that channel through AsyncWrite (echo, shell prompts, SFTP - russh's own examples echo via into_stream()), the write future never completes. The handler task is stranded and no error surfaces, so application cleanup paths do not trigger. Repeat per channel and per connection; keep-alive traffic resets the server inactivity_timeout (default 600 s), so stranded resources persist as long as the attacker wants.
    • Client (malicious server): a malicious or buggy server confirms an opened channel with maximum packet size = 0; the client application's writes on that channel stall forever. The client inactivity_timeout defaults to None, so nothing ever tears the session down.
    • This is distinct from a window_size == 0 stall: a zero window is dynamic flow control that a well-behaved peer releases as soon as its buffers drain, while maximum packet size is a static peer declaration where 0 can never be satisfied by any future packet. RFC 4254 section 5.1 recommends a minimum of 32768 - legitimate peers do not send 0.

    Impact

    Permanent, silent denial of service for the affected writes, with stranded tasks/channels/connections that accumulate for the attacker - resource exhaustion of a server or of a client application. Because the failure mode is Poll::Pending instead of Err, ordinary application mitigations (error handling, timeouts on writes, connection teardown) do not engage on their own.

    Reproducer

    Two stock russh instances are enough (no raw SSH crafting required):

    1. Server: default config plus a host key; channel_open_session accepts and echoes using tokio::io::copy into channel.into_stream() (the pattern from russh's own examples).
    2. Client: default config except config.maximum_packet_size = 0 (accepted silently; see above), then authenticate_publickey, channel_open_session().await, channel.data(&b"hello"[..]).await.

    The client's CHANNEL_OPEN goes out with maximum packet size = 0 (russh/src/client/session.rs:21-44 encodes self.common.config.maximum_packet_size verbatim). All three scenarios below were verified end-to-end against a stock russh v0.64.1 build (ring backend), default settings otherwise:

    • control (both sides default, 32768): the server echoes and the client receives hello;
    • client maximum_packet_size = 0: the server prints the received bytes and then the echo write never completes - no data, no error, the client times out;
    • server maximum_packet_size = 0: the client's channel.data(...) future never completes - no error, it times out.

    Observed output (abridged):

    === SCENARIO A (control): both sides default (maxpacket 32768) ===
    [server] read 5 bytes; echoing via AsyncWrite ...
    [server] echo write completed
    RESULT A: echo received: "hello"
    
    === SCENARIO B: client advertises maximum_packet_size = 0 ===
    [server] read 5 bytes; echoing via AsyncWrite ...
    RESULT B: TIMEOUT after 6s - server-side echo write is permanently stalled (no error, no data)
    
    === SCENARIO C: server advertises maximum_packet_size = 0 ===
    RESULT C: TIMEOUT after 6s - client-side channel.data() is permanently stalled
    

    The server task stays parked inside ChannelTx::poll_writable; nothing is logged and nothing is returned to the handler. The harness source (server: into_stream() echo; client: one config toggle) can be attached on request.

    Unit-level sketch of the core defect:

    let mut tx = ChannelTx::<Msg>::new(
        sender, ChannelId(0),
        Arc::new(Mutex::new(4096)),   // window_size
        Arc::new(Notify::new()),      // notify
        0,         
    

    Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities), GitHub Security Advisories, cvelistv5, NVD (NIST)

    Affected products

    The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.

    Affected products
    Affected versionsFixed in
    Eugenyrussh
    • ≥ 0.60.0, < 0.65.0
    • —
    crates.iorussh
    • 0.60.0
    • 0.65
    rustrussh
    • >= 0.60.0, <= 0.64.1
    • 0.65

    Vendors and products

    Weakness classes (CWE)

    • CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

      Class

      The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

      Entry at MITRE CWE-400
    • CWE-835Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop')

      Base

      The product contains an iteration or loop with an exit condition that cannot be reached, i.e., an infinite loop.

      Entry at MITRE CWE-835

    References & sources

    • github.comEugeny/russh/commit/39cb9dbaa37caf555d34c6c22efa3bbbff9e186cx_refsource_MISC, web
    • github.comEugeny/russh/releases/tag/v0.65.0x_refsource_MISC, web
    • github.comEugeny/russh/security/advisories/GHSA-fw5c-8223-6h42x_refsource_CONFIRM, web
    • NVD (NIST)vuln/detail/CVE-2026-116774advisory
    • github.comEugeny/russhpackage

    Changes to this CVE

    Who changed this CVE and when: NVD (analysis, affected products, CVSS), the CVE publisher (CNA) and additional providers such as CISA (ADP).

    1. Record modifiedCISA ADP

      CISA assessment (SSVC): exploitation: none known, automatable: no

      Show the original change
      Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
      TypeActionBeforeAfter
      SSVC assessmentadded
      —
      {"id":"CVE-2026-116774","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"none"},{"automatable":"no"},{"technicalImpact":"partial"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-10-28T14:34:53.983359Z"}

      Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

    2. ReceivedGitHub

      Show 8 original changes
      Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
      TypeActionBeforeAfter
      Descriptionadded
      —
      russh is a Rust SSH client and server library that includes an SSH agent protocol implementation. From 0.60.0 until 0.65.0, channel-open parsing accepts a peer-declared maximum_packet_size of zero and passes it into ChannelTx::poll_writable in russh/src/channels/io/tx.rs. The Channel::data, Channel::make_writer, and Channel::into_stream asynchronous write paths then calculate a writable size of zero and remain pending forever because window adjustments cannot satisfy a static zero packet maximum. An authenticated client can strand server writes, and a malicious server can strand client writes, allowing affected tasks, channels, and connections to accumulate without surfacing an error. This issue is fixed in version 0.65.0.
      CVSSadded
      —
      AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
      Weakness type (CWE)added
      —
      CWE-400
      Weakness type (CWE)added
      —
      CWE-835
      Affected versions (publisher)added
      —
      New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/116xxx/CVE-2026-116774.json">CVE-2026-116774</a>
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://github.com/Eugeny/russh/commit/39cb9dbaa37caf555d34c6c22efa3bbbff9e186c
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://github.com/Eugeny/russh/releases/tag/v0.65.0
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://github.com/Eugeny/russh/security/advisories/GHSA-fw5c-8223-6h42

      Source identifier: security-advisories@github.com

    Embed badge

    Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.

    Badge preview for CVE-2026-116774
    <a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-116774"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-116774.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-116774 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>