VulnerabilityPublished 5 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-93998: CWE-347

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-93998· High 7.4

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 19:34 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

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	7.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 5 Nov 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 5 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-rxhm-ghrc-q7h4

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat AMQ Broker 7keycloak-core	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Build of Keycloakkeycloak-core	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Build of Keycloakkeycloak/rhbk-openshift-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Build of Keycloakkeycloak/rhbk-rhel9-operator	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Build of Keycloakrhbk/keycloak-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Build of Keycloakrhbk/keycloak-rhel9-operator	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Currently, no mitigation or patch meeting Red Hat's criteria for ease of use, deployment, applicability, or stability is available. Users should monitor Red Hat advisories for updates. Since exploitation requires the specific condition of shared signing keys among identity providers, reviewing and segregating signing keys per identity provider may reduce risk. Customers with Red Hat Technical Account Managers can seek guidance directly.

Description

A vulnerability in the SAML adapter component of Keycloak allows an attacker controlling one of multiple identity providers sharing the same signing key to bypass authentication. The flaw arises because the adapter does not verify that the issuer of a signed SAML assertion matches the expected identity provider configured for the application. Exploitation can lead to unauthorized access, including full administrative control of applications protected by the Keycloak SAML adapter.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows an attacker to bypass authentication controls and gain unauthorized access to applications secured by the Keycloak SAML adapter, including the ability to assume any user identity and potentially obtain full administrative privileges. This compromises confidentiality and integrity of the affected applications. Availability impact is not affected.

Summary

CVE-2026-93998 is a security flaw in Keycloak's SAML adapter where the component fails to validate that the issuer of a signed SAML assertion matches the configured identity provider entity ID. When multiple identity providers share the same trusted signing key, an attacker controlling one such provider can generate a validly signed assertion to impersonate any user, potentially gaining administrative privileges. The root cause is improper verification of the cryptographic signature issuer (CWE-347). Red Hat has assessed this vulnerability as Important, with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.4 (High severity).

CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Nov 2026, 19:34 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats