Skip to content

GHSA-g9f8-wqj9-fjw5: russh, russh-cryptovec#2924

Open
kpcyrd wants to merge 2 commits into
rustsec:mainfrom
kpcyrd:russh
Open

GHSA-g9f8-wqj9-fjw5: russh, russh-cryptovec#2924
kpcyrd wants to merge 2 commits into
rustsec:mainfrom
kpcyrd:russh

Conversation

@kpcyrd
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@kpcyrd kpcyrd commented May 29, 2026

Affected crate(s)

  • russh
  • russh-cryptovec

Links to upstream issue(s) or PR(s)

Severity

denial-of-service through unchecked allocations

Checklist

  • Advisory filename(s) starts with RUSTSEC-0000-0000 as the ID
  • date field is set to the public disclosure date
  • Contains a concise and descriptive title after advisory metadata
  • Asked maintainer(s) if publishing an advisory is appropriate

Fixes #2892

@kpcyrd kpcyrd changed the title Russh GHSA-g9f8-wqj9-fjw5: russh, russh-cryptovec May 29, 2026
@djc
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

djc commented May 29, 2026

It looks like this should be a single advisory for just the cryptovec crate? Presumably all russh users will depend on that anyway.

@kpcyrd
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

kpcyrd commented May 29, 2026

This part is in the russh crate:

        if len > MAX_AGENT_FRAME_LEN {
            return Err(Error::AgentProtocolError);
        }

Without it, users may allocate up to u32::MAX/4GB.

I don't have strong opinions on this though, making it a single advisory for russh-cryptovec is also fine with me.

@djc
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

djc commented May 29, 2026

Okay, in that case it might be better to have two, but I'd prefer to not have the same advisory text for both but clearly articulate the particulars for each crate.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

russh, russh-cryptovec: CVE-2026-46673, GHSA-g9f8-wqj9-fjw5

2 participants