VulnerabilityPublished 13 Nov 2025Updated 19 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-11538: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 · Binding to an Unrestricted IP Address

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
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: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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 13 Nov 2025
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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.keycloak/keycloak`pkg:maven/org.keycloak/keycloak`Other threats	Affected =26.4	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-11538, organizations should first ensure that debug mode is disabled in all production Keycloak deployments, as it is primarily intended for development and troubleshooting purposes. If debug mode must be enabled, explicitly configure the JDWP port to bind only to localhost (127.0.0.1) rather than all network interfaces to prevent remote network access. Network-level controls such as firewall rules should be implemented to block access to the debug port from unauthorized hosts, restricting it to trusted administrators or isolated management networks. Monitoring and logging of debug port activity can help detect unauthorized access attempts. Organizations should track Red Hat advisories and apply any patches or updates addressing this vulnerability as soon as they become available. Additionally, conducting network segmentation and zero-trust principles can reduce the risk of attackers gaining local network access required for exploitation. Regular security audits and configuration reviews should verify that debug mode is not enabled unintentionally in production environments.

Description

CVE-2025-11538 is a medium-severity vulnerability in Red Hat's build of Keycloak 26.4 where enabling debug mode causes the Java Debug Wire Protocol (JDWP) port to bind to all network interfaces (0.0.0.0) by default. This exposes the debug port to the local network, allowing attackers on the same network segment to attach a remote debugger and execute arbitrary code within the Keycloak JVM. The vulnerability requires no authentication or user interaction but has a high attack complexity due to network access requirements. Exploitation can lead to full compromise of the Keycloak server's confidentiality and integrity. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild. European organizations using this Keycloak version in network environments where debug mode might be enabled are at risk, especially those with sensitive identity and access management deployments.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-11538 can be substantial, especially for those relying on Keycloak for critical identity and access management functions. Successful exploitation allows attackers on the same local network segment to execute arbitrary code within the Keycloak JVM, potentially leading to unauthorized access to authentication tokens, user credentials, and administrative controls. This can result in identity theft, privilege escalation, and lateral movement within enterprise networks. Confidentiality and integrity of authentication data are severely compromised, undermining trust in security controls. Although the attack requires local network access, many enterprise environments have segmented networks where internal threats or compromised devices could exploit this vulnerability. The lack of user interaction and authentication requirements lowers the barrier for attackers once network access is gained. Given the widespread use of Red Hat and Keycloak in European public and private sectors, the vulnerability could affect a broad range of organizations, including government agencies, financial institutions, and large enterprises. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests limited immediate risk, but the potential for future exploitation remains high if mitigations are not applied promptly.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Dec 2025, 20:50 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats