CVE-2025-13881VulnerabilityPublished 2 Feb 2026Updated 10 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-13881: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 · Incorrect Privilege Assignment

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.7 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.7Low

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: 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 2 Feb 2026
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 2026-10-26.

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 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
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.4	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.4	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.4	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.4.9	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately review and audit the assignment of administrative privileges within their Keycloak deployments to ensure the principle of least privilege is enforced. Restrict access to the Admin API endpoints, especially /unmanagedAttributes, to only fully trusted administrators. Monitor administrative activity logs for unusual access patterns to sensitive user attributes. Stay current with Red Hat security advisories and apply patches or updates as soon as they become available for Keycloak 26.4. Consider implementing additional access controls or API gateway policies to limit exposure of sensitive endpoints. If possible, temporarily disable or restrict the /unmanagedAttributes endpoint until a patch is released. Conduct internal penetration testing and vulnerability assessments focusing on privilege escalation and API access controls. Educate administrators on the sensitivity of custom user attributes and the importance of secure privilege management.

Description

A flaw was found in Keycloak Admin API. This vulnerability allows an administrator with limited privileges to retrieve sensitive custom attributes via the /unmanagedAttributes endpoint, bypassing User Profile visibility settings.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-13881 is the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive custom user attributes to administrators who should not have access to them. This could lead to privacy violations, leakage of confidential user information, and potential compliance issues for organizations handling sensitive data. While the vulnerability does not affect system integrity or availability, the exposure of sensitive attributes could be leveraged in social engineering or targeted attacks if the data includes personally identifiable information or security-related metadata. Organizations relying on Keycloak for identity management may face reputational damage and regulatory scrutiny if such data is improperly accessed. However, the requirement for limited administrator privileges reduces the risk of widespread exploitation, as attackers must already have some level of trusted access. The absence of known exploits in the wild further limits immediate risk but does not eliminate the need for remediation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Feb 2026, 10:26 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats