VulnerabilityPublished 17 Apr 2024Updated 11 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-2419: Open Redirect

Source CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2023-6291

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:29 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 42% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 17 Apr 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 Oct 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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.

What to do

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-2419, organizations should immediately upgrade Keycloak to a version where the redirect_uri validation logic is properly fixed once patches are released. Until patches are available, administrators should implement strict allowlists for redirect URIs and consider disabling or restricting external redirects where feasible. Employ additional monitoring and logging of authentication redirects to detect suspicious redirection patterns. Use Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) to block known malicious URLs and enforce strict Content Security Policies (CSP) to reduce the impact of redirected malicious content. Educate users to be cautious of unexpected authentication redirects and implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the risk of token misuse. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on authentication flows to identify similar weaknesses. Finally, review and tighten OAuth2/OpenID Connect configurations to minimize exposure.

Description

A flaw was found in Keycloak's redirect_uri validation logic. This issue may allow a bypass of otherwise explicitly allowed hosts. A successful attack may lead to the theft of an access token, making it possible for the attacker to impersonate other users. It is very similar to CVE-2023-6291.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-2419 is substantial for organizations using Keycloak as their identity provider. Successful exploitation can lead to theft of access tokens, allowing attackers to impersonate users and access sensitive data or systems without authorization. This compromises confidentiality and integrity of user sessions and may also disrupt availability if attackers perform unauthorized actions or cause session invalidation. Enterprises relying on Keycloak for single sign-on and federated identity management face risks of widespread account compromise, data breaches, and potential lateral movement within networks. The vulnerability could also undermine trust in authentication workflows, affecting compliance with regulatory requirements. Given Keycloak's adoption in government, financial, healthcare, and technology sectors, the threat has broad implications for critical infrastructure and sensitive data protection worldwide.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 10:42 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats