| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A vulnerability was discovered in Keycloak's administrative interface that allows certain administrators to see information about groups they shouldn't have access to. When the new Fine-Grained Admin Permissions (FGAP v2) are turned on, an administrator who is allowed to see a specific "role" can also see a list of all groups assigned to that role. The system fails to check if the administrator has permission to see those specific groups. This could allow a restricted administrator to discover "hidden" groups and see their details, such as internal names and custom settings, which might contain sensitive deployment information. |
| A flaw was found in the ClientResource component of Keycloak's admin services when Fine-Grained Admin Permissions (FGAP) v2 is enabled. This issue allows a delegated administrator, who should only have limited control over specific clients, to attach or remove hidden client scopes that they are not authorized to see or manage. As a result, an attacker could inject unauthorized data or permissions into the security tokens issued to end-users, potentially tricking other applications into granting higher levels of access than intended. |
| A flaw exists in the org.keycloak.broker.oidc package where the OIDC broker incorrectly synchronizes the email_verified claim. When an OIDC identity provider is configured with trustEmail=true and the userinfo endpoint is enabled, Keycloak retrieves the email address from the userinfo response but retrieves the email_verified status exclusively from the id_token.
The root cause is a lack of validation ensuring that the email_verified claim in the id_token actually refers to the email address returned by the userinfo endpoint. If these two sources return different email addresses, the id_token's email_verified=true claim is blindly applied to the userinfo email.
Exploitation Conditions:
The OIDC identity provider must have trustEmail set to true (non-default).
The userinfo endpoint must be enabled (default).
The attacker must control or have compromised the upstream OIDC provider.
Concrete Impact:
Mark arbitrary email addresses as verified in the Keycloak database.
Bypass email-based security controls or verification workflows.
Potential account takeover if the application relies solely on the email_verified flag from the IdP to link accounts. |
| A flaw was found in the default-groups REST endpoint and realm representation of Keycloak. This component is responsible for managing groups that are automatically assigned to new users within a realm. The issue allows a delegated administrator with realm-viewing permissions to see the names and identifiers of hidden default groups, even if they lack the specific permissions to view those groups. This can lead to the exposure of sensitive organizational structures or internal group names. |
| Keycloak provides a mechanism called Client Policies to enforce security requirements on clients, such as requiring them to use signed JWTs for authentication. A flaw was discovered where this enforcement can be bypassed. An attacker with valid client credentials can provide a fake, unsigned assertion header that tricks the system into thinking the policy requirements have been met. This allows the attacker to authenticate using simpler methods like a client secret even when the administrator has mandated more secure, signed assertions. |
| A flaw was found in the admin REST API of Keycloak, a solution for identity and access management. The issue occurs when a delegated administrator attempts to remove a child role from a composite role. Due to missing authorization checks, an attacker with limited administrative permissions can remove privileged roles they are not authorized to manage, leading to a loss of access for other users and administrators. |
| A flaw was found in the keycloak-services component of Keycloak. This issue is an incomplete fix for CVE-2026-9798, where brute-force protection checks were added to the Client-Initiated Backchannel Authentication (CIBA) initiation handler but were omitted from the token redemption handler. This allows an attacker with valid client credentials to obtain access and refresh tokens for a user account that has been locked due to brute-force protection, provided the authentication request was started before the lockout occurred and was approved by the user. |
| A flaw was found in the authentication configuration endpoint of the keycloak-services component, which is the core engine for Red Hat Build of Keycloak identity and access management. The issue occurs because the system fails to mask sensitive configuration values, such as reCAPTCHA secret keys, when they are requested by administrators with view-only permissions. This can lead to the exposure of third-party service credentials to unauthorized personnel or through administrative logs. |
| A flaw was found in the Keycloak Admin REST API, which is used to manage security realms and clients. The issue occurs when the system processes requests for rotated client secrets that are stored in a secure vault. Due to improper boundary enforcement, a delegated administrator with view-only permissions can retrieve the actual resolved secret instead of the vault placeholder, leading to the exposure of sensitive credentials. |
| A flaw was found in the role-users endpoint of the keycloak-services library, which is the core component of the Keycloak identity and access management solution. The issue occurs because the system fails to check if an administrator has permission to view individual users when listing members of a role. This allows a restricted administrator to see private information, such as names and email addresses, for users they should not be able to access. |
| A flaw was found in the Undertow HTTP server core, which is used in WildFly, JBoss EAP, and other Java applications. The Undertow library fails to properly validate the Host header in incoming HTTP requests.As a result, requests containing malformed or malicious Host headers are processed without rejection, enabling attackers to poison caches, perform internal network scans, or hijack user sessions. |
| The Undertow web server enforces a default maximum HTTP request entity size limit. Any request (including GET or HEAD) containing a body that exceeds this configurable limit is safely dropped by the server, preventing single-request Resource Exhaustion (Out of Memory) Denial of Service attacks. |
| The reported behavior does not constitute a privilege escalation. Exploitation requires the attacker to already possess the manage-realm administrative role within the realm-management client. By design, the manage-realm role is intended to be equivalent in administrative authority to realm-admin. A user with manage-realm already has full administrative control over the realm. Therefore, importing users with realm-admin role mappings through POST /admin/realms/{realm}/partialImport does not grant any additional privileges beyond those already held by the administrator and does not represent a security vulnerability. |
| A flaw was found in Wildfly Elytron integration. The component does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame, making it more susceptible to brute force attacks via CLI. |
| A flaw was found in Keycloak. This JWT algorithm confusion vulnerability in the JWT Authorization Grant flow allows an attacker with valid client credentials to bypass signature verification. By forging an assertion, the attacker can create unauthorized access tokens. This enables the attacker to impersonate any federated user linked to the affected Identity Provider, leading to unauthorized access and potential privilege escalation. |
| A flaw was found in Undertow. When Undertow receives an HTTP request where the first header line starts with one or more spaces, it incorrectly processes the request by stripping these leading spaces. This behavior, which violates HTTP standards, can be exploited by a remote attacker to perform request smuggling. Request smuggling allows an attacker to bypass security mechanisms, access restricted information, or manipulate web caches, potentially leading to unauthorized actions or data exposure. |
| A flaw was found in Undertow. This vulnerability allows a remote attacker to construct specially crafted requests where header names are parsed differently by Undertow compared to upstream proxies. This discrepancy in header interpretation can be exploited to launch request smuggling attacks, potentially bypassing security controls and accessing unauthorized resources. |
| A flaw was found in Undertow. A remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending `\r\r\r` as a header block terminator. This can be used for request smuggling with certain proxy servers, such as older versions of Apache Traffic Server and Google Cloud Classic Application Load Balancer, potentially leading to unauthorized access or manipulation of web requests. |
| A vulnerability was found in Undertow where the ProxyProtocolReadListener reuses the same StringBuilder instance across multiple requests. This issue occurs when the parseProxyProtocolV1 method processes multiple requests on the same HTTP connection. As a result, different requests may share the same StringBuilder instance, potentially leading to information leakage between requests or responses. In some cases, a value from a previous request or response may be erroneously reused, which could lead to unintended data exposure. This issue primarily results in errors and connection termination but creates a risk of data leakage in multi-request environments. |
| A flaw was found in Infinispan CLI. A sensitive password, decoded from a Base64-encoded Kubernetes secret, is processed in plaintext and included in a command string that may expose the data in an error message when a command is not found. |
