VulnerabilityPublished 23 Oct 2025Updated 19 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-12110: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.2 · Insufficient Session Expiration

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.2Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 23 Oct 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 =26.2	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Monitor and audit refresh token usage closely to detect unusual or prolonged token refresh activity that may indicate exploitation.
Implement strict token revocation policies and consider reducing refresh token lifetimes to limit exposure.
Enforce multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the risk of token theft or misuse.
Segregate administrative functions and restrict privileges to minimize the impact of compromised tokens.
Stay informed on Red Hat and Keycloak vendor advisories and apply patches promptly once released.
Consider deploying additional session management controls such as token introspection and real-time revocation checks.
Educate administrators on the implications of offline_access scope changes and verify session invalidation through testing.
Use network segmentation and anomaly detection systems to identify suspicious authentication patterns.
Review and update incident response plans to include scenarios involving token misuse and session persistence.
If possible, temporarily disable offline_access scope or limit its use until the vulnerability is addressed.

Description

A flaw was found in Keycloak. An offline session continues to be valid when the offline_access scope is removed from the client. The refresh token is accepted and you can continue to request new tokens for the session. As it can lead to a situation where an administrator removes the scope, and assumes that offline sessions are no longer available, but they are.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk to the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data and systems protected by Keycloak authentication. Attackers or malicious insiders with access to refresh tokens could maintain unauthorized access even after administrators attempt to revoke offline access, potentially leading to data breaches, privilege escalation, or lateral movement within networks. Organizations relying on Keycloak for critical applications, especially those handling personal data under GDPR, face compliance risks if unauthorized access persists undetected. The medium severity score indicates a moderate risk, but the potential for prolonged unauthorized access without user interaction increases the threat level in environments with high-value targets. The impact is particularly significant for sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and telecommunications, where identity management is crucial. Additionally, the lack of immediate patches means organizations must implement compensating controls to mitigate risk until updates are available.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Dec 2025, 04:11 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats