CVE-2026-116794

HIGHPre-NVD 8.38.3
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This high-severity CVE scores 8.3 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.2% (4th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source
Elevated

Also known asEUVD-2026-112267 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqv (GitHub Security Advisories) · RUSTSEC-2026-0495 (OSV.dev)Source: ENISA EUVD

8.3EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • CISA's Vulnrichment rates exploitation as PoC; EchelonGraph holds no exploit-code reference for it
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 8.3Exploit: No code on recordExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

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
8.3
EG Score
8.3HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
53
EG Risk 53/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity83% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 8.3 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation40% × 40%
EchelonGraph's fixed weight for EG-KEV Tier 3 (Elevated): a constant, not a probability.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
4th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (8.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
8.3 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source
EG Likelihood
0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-10). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

October 28, 2026

Last Modified

November 4, 2026

Advisory Details (4)

Auto-updated Oct 28, 2026
🔬 Proof of concept available. Patch available. Sources: github, github_commit, github_release.
GitHub release Patch Available

v0.65.0

Patch available: Eugeny/russh v0.65.0

https://github.com/Eugeny/russh/releases/tag/v0.65.0
GitHub commit Patch Available

commit 62db6e7defd6 (Eugeny/russh)

Patch available: Eugeny/russh v0.65.0 (contains commit 62db6e7defd6)

https://github.com/Eugeny/russh/commit/62db6e7defd6d244159da962ccccb029e785ce0f
GitHub commit Patch Available

commit 3e04597dc54e (Eugeny/russh)

Patch available: Eugeny/russh v0.54.6 (contains commit 3e04597dc54e)

https://github.com/Eugeny/russh/commit/3e04597dc54e36bfc85c21996f7d8d9d224e9826
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)🟡 PoC Available

Agent server never calls `Agent::confirm`, so keys added with the confirm constraint (`ssh-add -c`) sign without confirmation · Advisory · Eugeny/russh · GitHub

https://github.com/Eugeny/russh/security/advisories/GHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqv

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-116794(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(2)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
redhatopenshell-main-0.1.6-0.1.hum12026-11-02redhat
rustrussh @ 0.65 (fixes < 0.65)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(2 across 2 ecosystems)
crates.io(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
russh—
  • every version up to 0.65: fixed in 0.65
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
rust-russh0.57.1-1, 0.57.1-2, 0.64.1-1, 0.64.1-2
  • every version on: no fix on record
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

All Vendor Advisories

(1)

Every vendor that published an advisory referencing this CVE — pulled from our cve_vendor_advisories aggregation. Click any row for the vendor's original advisory page.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 9× in last 7d / 27× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-12 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  2. 2026-11-11 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  3. 2026-11-11 03:42 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  4. 2026-11-11 03:42 UTCVendor advisory
  5. 2026-11-11 03:42 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqv · GitHub severity HIGH
  6. 2026-11-10 16:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  7. 2026-11-09 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  8. 2026-11-08 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  9. 2026-11-07 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  10. 2026-11-06 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  11. 2026-11-05 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  12. 2026-11-04 23:26 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  13. 2026-11-04 23:26 UTCVendor advisory
  14. 2026-11-04 23:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqv · GitHub severity HIGH
  15. 2026-11-04 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  16. 2026-11-03 20:11 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  17. 2026-11-03 20:11 UTCVendor advisory
  18. 2026-11-03 20:11 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqv · GitHub severity HIGH
  19. 2026-11-03 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  20. 2026-11-03 13:33 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  21. 2026-11-03 13:33 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-11-03 13:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqv · GitHub severity HIGH
  23. 2026-11-03 13:23 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  24. 2026-11-03 13:23 UTCVendor advisory
  25. 2026-11-03 13:23 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqv · GitHub severity HIGH
Show 9 more
  1. 2026-11-02 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  2. 2026-11-01 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  3. 2026-10-31 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  4. 2026-10-30 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  5. 2026-10-29 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  6. 2026-10-28 18:53 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  7. 2026-10-28 18:01 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-112267 · Source: ENISA EUVD
  8. 2026-10-28 17:21 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 8.3 HIGH
  9. 2026-10-28 17:19 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Related CVEs(same product + same vendor + same CWE)

Same vendor

2 shown

redhat:RHSA-2026:93904

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-116794?
CVE-2026-116794 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 28, 2026. 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…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-116794 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-116794 was published on October 28, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of November 4, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-116794 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-116794 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (4th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-116794?
CVE-2026-116794 has a CVSS base score of 8.3 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-116794?
A fix for CVE-2026-116794 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-116794 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-116794

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-116794?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs