Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🦀
🦀 crates.io
Not in CISA KEV
MEDIUM severity

CVE-2026-46705 — russh

MEDIUM

CVE-2026-46705 is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.3) Improper Authentication vulnerability in russh. A fix is available for russh — see the affected versions and patch details below.

russh server userauth state is not reset when authentication principal changes

Also known asGHSA-hpv4-5h6f-wqr3
Published
Updated
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Oct 8, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

Proof-of-concept exploit code exists

  • CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
  • CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-46705.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.4%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs28th percentile — riskier than 28% of all scored CVEsHighest risk
0.00%0.29%0.57%0.86%0.2%0.2%0.2%0.4%0.4%Jul 26Sep 26Oct 26

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

How urgent is this, really

CVE-2026-46705 by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 385,386 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Counts from FIRST.org, log-scaled.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected
🦀russh

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects crates.io packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Summary

The russh server authentication path keeps internal userauth state across SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_REQUEST messages without separating that state when the request principal changes.

RFC 4252 allows the user name and service name fields to change between authentication requests. The issue is not that such changes are invalid. The issue is that russh-owned authentication state, such as remaining methods, partial-success state, and in-progress method state, can remain associated with the connection and then influence a later request for a different (user, service).

This is an internal library state mismatch. Applications are responsible for any authentication state they keep in their own handlers, but russh must reset or separate state that russh itself owns.

Details

The relevant server-side auth logic is in:

  • russh/src/server/encrypted.rs
  • russh/src/auth.rs

RFC 4252 section 5 says the user name and service name fields are repeated in every SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_REQUEST and may change. It also says the server implementation must check those fields in every message and flush accumulated authentication state if they change; if it cannot flush that state, it must disconnect.

In vulnerable russh code, the username and service are decoded from each SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_REQUEST, while the AuthRequest state remains connection-scoped. That state includes:

  • methods, which is later encoded as the SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_FAILURE remaining-methods list.
  • partial_success, which is later encoded in SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_FAILURE.
  • current, which tracks in-progress method state such as public-key offer or keyboard-interactive challenge state.
  • rejection_count.

If one request narrows russh's internal methods set, a later request for a different user can observe that narrowed set unless the internal state is reset at the principal boundary.

PoC

The PoC demonstrates only russh-owned state. The handler does not store any cross-request state. Alice's request narrows russh's remaining methods to password; Bob's later plain reject should not reuse that internal state.

struct RemainingMethodsUserSwitchServer;

impl server::Handler for RemainingMethodsUserSwitchServer {
    type Error = russh::Error;

    async fn auth_none(&mut self, user: &str) -> Result<server::Auth, Self::Error> {
        if user == "alice" {
            Ok(server::Auth::Reject {
                proceed_with_methods: Some(MethodSet::from(&[MethodKind::Password][..])),
                partial_success: true,
            })
        } else {
            Ok(server::Auth::reject())
        }
    }
}

#[tokio::test]
async fn auth_does_not_carry_remaining_methods_across_username_change() {
    let alice = session.authenticate_none("alice").await.unwrap();

    assert!(matches!(
        alice,
        client::AuthResult::Failure {
            ref remaining_methods,
            ..
        } if *remaining_methods == MethodSet::from(&[MethodKind::Password][..])
    ));

    let bob = session.authenticate_none("bob").await.unwrap();

    if let client::AuthResult::Failure {
        remaining_methods, ..
    } = bob {
        assert!(
            remaining_methods.contains(&MethodKind::PublicKey),
            "server reused Alice's narrowed remaining methods for Bob: {remaining_methods:?}"
        );
    }
}

On upstream/main, this fails with:

server reused Alice's narrowed remaining methods for Bob: MethodSet([Password])

That failure is produced by russh's retained AuthRequest.methods; it does not depend on handler-owned MFA/session state.

Impact

Suggested provisional CVSS v3.1:

  • CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
  • Score: 5.3

Reasoning:

  • AV:N: reachable by a remote SSH client during authentication.
  • AC:L: the attack is a normal sequence of SSH user-auth packets.
  • PR:N: the attacker does not need an already-authenticated SSH session.
  • UI:N: no user interaction is required on the server side.
  • S:U: the impact is within the vulnerable SSH server implementation.
  • C:N: the narrow PoC does not disclose confidential data.
  • I:L: russh-owned authentication state for one principal can affect the authentication flow for a different principal.
  • A:N: the narrow PoC does not demonstrate an availability impact.

This report does not claim that username changes are inherently invalid, nor does it rely on application-owned authentication state being mishandled by the embedding server.

Fix / Patch Direction

The fix should update russh's internal userauth state handling so that accumulated russh-owned state is flushed or separated when (user, service) changes between SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_REQUEST messages.

The fix stores the last seen (user, service) on AuthRequest. When a new auth request arrives for a different principal, russh resets its internal auth state before dispatching the new request. This keeps username changes protocol-valid while preventing prior russh-owned auth state from carrying into the new principal.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🦀crates.iorussh≥ 0.34.0-beta.1&&< 0.61.00.61.0cargo update -p russh --precise 0.61.0

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for russh, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

  2. Fix

    Update russh to 0.61.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-46705 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. Workarounds

    Put an independent control in front of the weakness: restrict the affected endpoint or interface to trusted networks, require an additional authentication factor or proxy-level check, and invalidate existing sessions and credentials in case the flaw has already been used.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Summary The `russh` server authentication path keeps internal userauth state across `SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_REQUEST` messages without separating that state when the request principal changes. RFC 4252 allows the `user name` and `service name` fields to change between authentication requests. The issue is not that such changes are invalid. The issue is that russh-owned authentication state, such as remaining methods, partial-success state, and in-progress method state, can remain associated with the connection and then influence a later request for a different `(user, service)`. This is an inte
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is CVE-2026-46705 in your dependencies?

Find it across crates.io, including transitive dependencies.

CVE-2026-46705: russh — Fixed in 0.61.0