CVE 7.5 HIGH

httpsig-hyper has Improper Digest Verification that May Allow Message Integrity Bypass_CVE-2026-26275

7.5 / 10
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Description

httpsig-hyper is a hyper extension for http message signatures. An issue was discovered in `httpsig-hyper` prior to version 0.0.23 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. 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. 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.

Basic Information

ID CVE-2026-26275
Source GitHub_M
Published Feb 19, 2026 at 21:25

Affected Product

Vendor junkurihara
Product httpsig-rs
Version < 0.0.23
Affected Versions junkurihara httpsig-rs < 0.0.23

CWE Classification

References

💭 Join the Security Discussion

🔒 Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

⚠️ Please be respectful and constructive in your comments. Security discussions should remain professional.