VulnerabilityPublished 17 Jul 2026Updated 6 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-15943: CWE-1288

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-15943· Medium 5.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium : update Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.8 when convenient.

Data as of 6 Nov 2026, 14:06 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (redhat)	CVSS 3.1	5.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 17 Jul 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 6 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-rpfh-mgxm-c6hc

What to do

Patches and advisories

access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:95761 (opens in a new tab)

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.8keycloak-services	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.8rhbk-keycloak-rhel9/rhbk-keycloak-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.8rhbk-openshift-rhel9/rhbk-openshift-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Data Grid 8keycloak-services	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform Expansion Packkeycloak-services	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Single Sign-On 7keycloak-services	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released an official security update in the Red Hat build of Keycloak version 26.6.8 that addresses this and multiple other vulnerabilities. Users should upgrade to Keycloak 26.6.8 or later to remediate this issue. No additional mitigations are specified or required once the update is applied.

Description

A vulnerability in the Keycloak keycloak-services component allows a delegated administrator to update an OIDC identity provider using a masked client secret sentinel value. Due to improper validation, Keycloak reuses the existing real client secret even when security-sensitive fields such as the token URL are changed. This flaw enables an attacker with delegated admin privileges to redirect and capture the secret. The issue has a CVSS score of 5.5 (medium severity).

Impact

An attacker with delegated administrator privileges can exploit this vulnerability to redirect and capture the client secret of an OIDC identity provider. This compromises the confidentiality of the secret, potentially allowing unauthorized access or impersonation. The integrity impact is low, and there is no impact on availability. The flaw does not appear to be exploited in the wild as of the published date.

CWE-1288Improper Validation of Consistency within Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives a complex input with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually consistent.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Patches and advisories

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Nov 2026, 14:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1288

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats