Skip to content

Improper Digest Verification in httpsig-hyper May Allow Message Integrity Bypass

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 14, 2026 in junkurihara/httpsig-rs • Updated Feb 20, 2026

Package

cargo httpsig-hyper (Rust)

Affected versions

< 0.0.23

Patched versions

0.0.23

Description

Impact

An issue was discovered in httpsig-hyper where Digest header verification could incorrectly succeed due to misuse of Rust's matches! macro. Specifically, the comparison:

if matches!(digest, _expected_digest)

treated _expected_digest as a pattern binding rather than a value comparison, resulting in unconditional success of the match expression.

As a consequence, digest verification could incorrectly return success even when the computed digest did not match the expected value.

Applications relying on Digest verification as part of HTTP message signature validation may therefore fail to detect message body modification. The severity depends on how the library is integrated and whether additional signature validation layers are enforced.


Patches

This issue has been fixed in:

  • httpsig-hyper >= 0.0.23

The fix replaces the incorrect matches! usage with proper value comparison and additionally introduces constant-time comparison for digest verification as defense-in-depth.

Regression tests have also been added to prevent reintroduction of this issue. Users are strongly advised to upgrade to the patched version.


Workarounds

There is no reliable workaround without upgrading. Users who cannot immediately upgrade should avoid relying solely on Digest verification for message integrity and ensure that full HTTP message signature verification is enforced at the application layer.


References

References

@junkurihara junkurihara published to junkurihara/httpsig-rs Feb 14, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 17, 2026
Reviewed Feb 17, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 19, 2026
Last updated Feb 20, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(6th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value

The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or checksums of a message. This may prevent it from detecting if the data has been modified or corrupted in transmission. Learn more on MITRE.

Incorrect Comparison

The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect, which may lead to resultant weaknesses. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-26275

GHSA ID

GHSA-7v42-g35v-xrch

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.