Eugeny Russh: Missing Authorization (CVE-2026-116794)
Published Last modified Sources: OSV, Hersteller, CVE.org
What is affected, what to do
Update Eugeny Russh to version 0.65.
- Affected
- Eugeny Russh
lt *..0.65
- Eugeny Russh
- Fixed in
- Eugeny Russh
0.65
- Eugeny Russh
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
8.3
Priority
XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v4
8.3
CVSS v4
Severity High on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: OSV, Hersteller, CVE.org
0.2 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 4.7
Show all metrics
- Severity
- High
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- 71.68 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- 8.3 Methodology
CVSS v4
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- 8.3
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- 0.2 %
- 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- 4.7
- Low — this CVE sits in the lower 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
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-862
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- High technical severity: assess and remediate the vulnerability in vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2 and document the decision.
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
The agent server in russh::keys::agent::server never calls Agent::confirm before signing with a key that was added with the confirm constraint. That constraint is SSH_AGENT_CONSTRAIN_CONFIRM (RFC 9987 §5.2.7.2), which is what ssh-add -c sends.
The call was replaced by a hard-coded true in 3e04597 ("Native async traits encore", #455), first released in 0.50.0-beta.12. Every release since, up to and including 0.64.1, signs requests for confirm-constrained keys without asking the Agent implementation. A user who added a key with -c is therefore never asked to confirm.
Details
Connection::try_sign notes that the key needs confirmation, then awaits a ready future instead of the agent (server.rs L348-L360 at v0.64.1):
let agent = if needs_confirm {
let (agent, ok) = {
let _pk = key.clone();
Box::new(futures::future::ready((agent, true)))
}
.await;
if !ok {
return Ok((agent, false));
}
agent
} else {
agent
};
Before 3e04597 the first statement was let (agent, ok) = agent.confirm(key.clone()).await;.
try_sign was checked in the published crates on crates.io:
- Every russh release from 0.50.0-beta.12 to 0.64.1 (52 versions) has the hard-coded
true. - russh 0.50.0-beta.8 to beta.11 call
agent.confirm. - Earlier russh releases have no agent server. It lived in russh-keys, and no russh-keys release is affected.
Not affected:
Agentimplementations that keep the defaultconfirm, which returnstrueanyway.- Checks made in
Agent::confirm_request, which is still called withMessageType::Signfor every sign request (L158-L159). - The agent client, and the SSH client and server.
PoC
- Add this test to
mod testinrussh/src/keys/mod.rs. It uses the module's existingIncominghelper andED25519_KEY. - Run
cargo test -p russh --lib keys::test::test_agent_confirms_keys_added_with_the_confirm_constraint.
#[tokio::test]
#[cfg(unix)]
async fn test_agent_confirms_keys_added_with_the_confirm_constraint() {
use std::sync::atomic::{AtomicUsize, Ordering};
// An agent whose user refuses every confirmation prompt.
#[derive(Clone)]
struct Refuse(std::sync::Arc<AtomicUsize>);
impl agent::server::Agent for Refuse {
fn confirm(
self,
_: std::sync::Arc<PrivateKey>,
) -> Box<dyn Future<Output = (Self, bool)> + Send + Unpin> {
self.0.fetch_add(1, Ordering::SeqCst);
Box::new(futures::future::ready((self, false)))
}
}
let prompts = std::sync::Arc::new(AtomicUsize::new(0));
let dir = tempfile::tempdir().unwrap();
let agent_path = dir.path().join("agent");
let mut listener = tokio::net::UnixListener::bind(&agent_path).unwrap();
let agent = Refuse(prompts.clone());
tokio::spawn(async move {
agent::server::serve(
Incoming {
listener: &mut listener,
},
agent,
)
.await
});
let key = decode_secret_key(ED25519_KEY, Some("blabla")).unwrap();
let public = key.public_key().clone();
let stream = tokio::net::UnixStream::connect(&agent_path).await.unwrap();
let mut client = agent::client::AgentClient::connect(stream);
// What `ssh-add -c` sends.
client
.add_identity(&key, &[agent::Constraint::Confirm])
.await
.unwrap();
let signed = client
.sign_request(&AgentIdentity::from(public), None, b"data".to_vec())
.await;
let confirm_calls = prompts.load(Ordering::SeqCst);
assert!(
signed.is_err(),
"the agent signed with a confirm-constrained key without asking: \
Agent::confirm was called {confirm_calls} time(s)"
);
assert_eq!(
confirm_calls, 1,
"Agent::confirm should be asked exactly once"
);
}
On v0.64.1 (e5d80a0) the test fails:
the agent signed with a confirm-constrained key without asking: Agent::confirm was called 0 time(s)
With the fix below it passes, and so do all 46 keys:: tests.
Impact
A russh-based agent whose Agent::confirm asks the user, or applies any other check, signs every request for a confirm-constrained key without running that check. Anyone who can talk to the agent can then use the key without the user's approval:
- other local processes of the user;
- the remote host, when the agent is forwarded (
ssh -A).
Preventing exactly this is the purpose of the confirm constraint. RFC 9987 §10 names it as what stops an attacker with access to the agent from "stealing use of those keys".
Because the agent accepts the constraint, ssh-add -c reports success and the user believes the key is protected. RFC 9987 §5.2.7 says an agent that does not support a constraint MUST refuse the key instead.
The private key itself is not exposed. The impact is unauthorized use of it for as long as the attacker can reach the agent: logging in to other hosts as the user, or signing data such as git commits.
Known affected downstream user (from its public code; not tested): Proton Pass desktop, which uses russh 0.62.7.
- It adds every key with
Constraint::Confirm(mod.rs L332). - It uses
Agent::confirmas its "Pass is unlocked" check before signing, and defersMessageType::Signfromconfirm_requestto it (L75-L100). That check never runs. - Proton also removes keys from the agent on lock and logout (ssh-agent.middleware.ts L23-L27).
So the exposure there is limited to states in which keys stay loaded while Pass is not unlocked. Their own code notes, for example, that the agent persists across renderer reloads and account switches.
Suggested fix
--- a/russh/src/keys/agent/server.rs
+++ b/russh/src/keys/agent/server.rs
@@ -346,11 +346,7 @@ impl<S: AsyncRead + AsyncWrite + Send + Unpin + 'static, A: Agent + Send + Sync
}
};
let agent = if needs_confirm {
- let (agent, ok) = {
- let _pk = key.clone();
- Box::new(futures::future::ready((agent, true)))
- }
- .await;
+ let (agent, ok) = agent.confirm(key.clone()).await;
if !ok {
return Ok((agent, false));
}
When confirm returns false, try_sign returns false and the agent answers SSH_AGENT_FAILURE, as it did before the regression.
Compatibility note for the release notes: confirm is called again for confirm-constrained keys, so implementations that stub it out will now hit that stub.
- For example, Litterbox implements
confirmastodo!()(agent.rs L81-L87). - Each connection runs in its own task, so such a panic ends only that connection.
Related but separate: with the default confirm, the agent still accepts the confirm constraint without enforcing it. Given RFC 9987 §5.2.7, refusing such keys when the application does not implement confirm may be worth considering.
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 versions | Fixed in | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Eugeny | russh |
|
|
| crates.io | russh |
|
|
| rust | russh |
|
|
Vendors and products
Weakness classes (CWE)
CWE-862Missing Authorization
Class
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Entry at MITRE CWE-862
References & sources
- github.comEugeny/russh/commit/3e04597dc54e36bfc85c21996f7d8d9d224e9826x_refsource_MISC, web
- github.comEugeny/russh/commit/62db6e7defd6d244159da962ccccb029e785ce0fx_refsource_MISC, web
- github.comEugeny/russh/releases/tag/v0.65.0x_refsource_MISC, web
- github.comEugeny/russh/security/advisories/GHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqvx_refsource_CONFIRM, web
- NVD (NIST)vuln/detail/CVE-2026-116794advisory
- 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).
ReceivedGitHub
CVSS V4.0: AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N
Weakness type: CWE-862
Description added or changed
Show 8 original changes
Individual changes of this event as published by NVD Type Action Before After Description added —russh is a Rust SSH client and server library that includes an SSH agent protocol implementation. From 0.50.0-beta.12 until 0.65.0, the agent server's Connection::try_sign path in russh/src/keys/agent/server.rs recognizes SSH_AGENT_CONSTRAIN_CONFIRM but returns a hard-coded successful result instead of calling Agent::confirm. In applications that override Agent::confirm to require user approval or another policy check, a process that can reach the agent socket, including the remote side of a forwarded agent, can use a key added through ssh-add -c without that check and can authenticate or sign data as the user while the key remains loaded. The separate Agent::confirm_request hook still runs for every signing request, so checks implemented there remain effective, and implementations that retain the default always-successful Agent::confirm do not lose an approval check through this regression. This issue is fixed in version 0.65.0.CVSS added —AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XWeakness type (CWE) added —CWE-862Affected versions (publisher) added —New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/116xxx/CVE-2026-116794.json">CVE-2026-116794</a>Reference added —https://github.com/Eugeny/russh/commit/3e04597dc54e36bfc85c21996f7d8d9d224e9826Reference added —https://github.com/Eugeny/russh/commit/62db6e7defd6d244159da962ccccb029e785ce0fReference added —https://github.com/Eugeny/russh/releases/tag/v0.65.0Reference added —https://github.com/Eugeny/russh/security/advisories/GHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqvSource 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.
<a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-116794"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-116794.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-116794 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>