CVE-2025-14778VulnerabilityPublished 9 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-14778: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.2 · Incorrect Privilege Assignment

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.2Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 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 25% 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 9 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 2026-10-25.

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 26.2	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.2	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.2.13	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-2025-14778, organizations should apply any available patches or updates from Red Hat for Keycloak 26.2 as soon as they are released. In the absence of patches, administrators should audit UMA policies that are associated with multiple resources and restrict policy sharing to minimize cross-resource ownership scenarios. Implement strict monitoring and alerting on changes to UMA policies, especially those affecting multiple resources, to detect unauthorized modifications promptly. Review and tighten user privileges to limit who can create or modify UMA policies, ensuring only trusted users have such capabilities. Consider segmenting resources and policies to reduce the risk of horizontal privilege escalation by isolating resource ownership domains. Additionally, conduct regular access reviews and penetration testing focused on UMA policy management to identify and remediate potential abuse paths. Finally, maintain comprehensive logging of authorization checks and policy changes for forensic analysis if exploitation is suspected.

Description

A flaw was found in Keycloak. A significant Broken Access Control vulnerability exists in the UserManagedPermissionService (UMA Protection API). When updating or deleting a UMA policy associated with multiple resources, the authorization check only verifies the caller's ownership against the first resource in the policy's list. This allows a user (Owner A) who owns one resource (RA) to update a shared policy and modify authorization rules for other resources (e.g., RB) in that same policy, even if those other resources are owned by a different user (Owner B). This constitutes a horizontal privilege escalation.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-14778 is unauthorized horizontal privilege escalation within environments using Red Hat's Keycloak 26.2. Attackers who legitimately own one resource can manipulate UMA policies affecting other users' resources, potentially granting themselves or others unauthorized access or revoking legitimate access. This undermines the integrity of access control mechanisms and can lead to data exposure, unauthorized actions, or disruption of service for affected users. Organizations relying on Keycloak for identity and access management, especially those with shared or multi-tenant resource policies, face risks of unauthorized privilege modifications that could compromise sensitive data or critical operations. While the vulnerability does not directly impact availability, the integrity and confidentiality risks are significant in environments with complex resource sharing. The medium CVSS score reflects that exploitation requires some privileges but can be performed remotely without user interaction, increasing the threat surface. The lack of known exploits in the wild suggests the vulnerability is not yet actively exploited, but the potential for abuse remains high if unmitigated.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Feb 2026, 11:34 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats