VulnerabilityPublished 17 Jul 2026Updated 6 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-16103: CWE-305

Source GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-9798

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-16103· Medium 4.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium · fixed in Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.8 package updates : update Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.8 when convenient.

Data as of 6 Nov 2026, 14:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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	4.3

Patch: Available – fixed in 26.6.8

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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-v7m3-vpqr-6m6p

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 vulnerability. Users should upgrade to version 26.6.8 or later to remediate this issue. No additional mitigation steps are indicated in the vendor advisory.

Description

A flaw in the keycloak-services component of Keycloak allows an attacker with valid client credentials to bypass brute-force protection on user accounts locked due to repeated failed authentication attempts. This occurs because brute-force protection checks were added to the Client-Initiated Backchannel Authentication (CIBA) initiation handler but omitted from the token redemption handler. An attacker can obtain access and refresh tokens for a locked user account if the authentication request was started before the lockout and approved by the user.

Impact

An attacker with valid client credentials can bypass brute-force lockout protections to obtain access and refresh tokens for a user account locked due to brute-force attempts. This could allow unauthorized access to the user account despite the lockout, potentially leading to unauthorized session access. The impact is limited to confidentiality (partial token disclosure) with no direct integrity or availability impact reported.

CWE-305Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The authentication algorithm is sound, but the implemented mechanism can be bypassed as the result of a separate weakness that is primary to the authentication error.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-841Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product supports a session in which more than one behavior must be performed by an actor, but it does not properly ensure that the actor performs the behaviors in the required sequence or timeframe.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.5 (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, 14:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-305, CWE-841

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats