CVE-2025-14559VulnerabilityPublished 21 Jan 2026Updated 10 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-14559: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 · CWE-840

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% 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:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: 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: 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 21 Jan 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 2026-10-25.

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

To mitigate CVE-2025-14559, organizations should: 1) Apply any available patches or updates from Red Hat or the Keycloak project as soon as they are released to address the token exchange logic flaw. 2) Review and restrict privileged client permissions to the minimum necessary, limiting which clients can invoke the token exchange flow. 3) Implement strict monitoring and auditing of token exchange requests, especially those involving disabled users, to detect anomalous or unauthorized token issuance. 4) Enforce timely and comprehensive user disablement procedures, ensuring that token revocation mechanisms are tested and effective. 5) Consider additional compensating controls such as multi-factor authentication and anomaly detection on token usage to reduce risk from compromised tokens. 6) Conduct regular security reviews of business logic in authentication flows to identify and remediate similar logic errors proactively. 7) Isolate and segment identity management infrastructure to reduce the impact of potential token misuse. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on privilege management, monitoring, and business logic validation specific to token exchange processes.

Description

A flaw was found in the keycloak-services component of Keycloak. This vulnerability allows the issuance of access and refresh tokens for disabled users, leading to unauthorized use of previously revoked privileges, via a business logic vulnerability in the Token Exchange implementation when a privileged client invokes the token exchange flow.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-14559 is unauthorized access through the issuance of valid tokens for disabled users, undermining the access control mechanisms of organizations using Keycloak for identity and access management. This can lead to privilege escalation where attackers or malicious insiders with privileged client access maintain or regain access to sensitive systems and data despite user account revocation. Confidentiality and integrity of sensitive information are at risk, as attackers can impersonate disabled users and perform unauthorized actions. Although availability is not directly impacted, the breach of trust and potential data exposure can have severe operational and reputational consequences. Organizations relying on Keycloak for critical authentication services, especially in regulated industries or government sectors, may face compliance violations and increased risk of data breaches. The requirement for high privileges to exploit somewhat limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in complex environments with multiple privileged clients.

CWE-840Business Logic Errors (opens in a new tab)
CategoryOWASP Top 10 A04:2021: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
Weaknesses in this category identify some of the underlying problems that commonly allow attackers to manipulate the business logic of an application. Errors in business logic can be devastating to an entire application. They can be difficult to find automatically, since they typically involve legitimate use of the application's functionality. However, many business logic errors can exhibit patterns that are similar to well-understood implementation and design weaknesses.
MITRE does not allow mapping vulnerabilities to this entry; it groups weaknesses rather than naming one.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Feb 2026, 11:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-840

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats