VulnerabilityPublished 21 Aug 2025Updated 7 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-9162: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.0 · Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in an Environment Variable

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.0Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 43% 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:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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 21 Aug 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-9162, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Apply official patches or updates from Red Hat as soon as they become available to address the vulnerability directly. 2) Restrict the ability to perform realm imports to a minimal set of trusted administrators to reduce the risk of malicious document injection. 3) Audit and monitor all realm import activities for unusual or unauthorized operations. 4) Review and minimize the use of sensitive environment variables during realm import processes, avoiding storing critical secrets in environment variables accessible to Keycloak imports. 5) Implement input validation and sanitization controls on realm documents before import, potentially using custom validation scripts or tools. 6) Employ network segmentation and access controls to limit exposure of Keycloak administrative interfaces. 7) Conduct regular security training for administrators on safe import practices and the risks of environment variable exposure. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific attack vector and operational context of the vulnerability.

Description

A flaw was found in org.keycloak/keycloak-model-storage-service. The KeycloakRealmImport custom resource substitutes placeholders within imported realm documents, potentially referencing environment variables. This substitution process allows for injection attacks when crafted realm documents are processed. An attacker can leverage this to inject malicious content during the realm import procedure. This can lead to unintended consequences within the Keycloak environment.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-9162 can be substantial, particularly for those relying on Red Hat's Keycloak for centralized identity and access management. Exposure of sensitive environment variables could lead to unauthorized disclosure of credentials or tokens, potentially enabling lateral movement or privilege escalation within enterprise networks. Confidentiality breaches could affect compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations, leading to legal and reputational consequences. Since Keycloak is often integrated with critical business applications and services, any compromise could cascade into broader security incidents. The requirement for high privileges limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in large organizations with many administrators or automated processes that perform realm imports. The lack of impact on integrity and availability reduces the risk of service disruption but does not diminish the importance of protecting sensitive data. Organizations in sectors such as finance, government, and healthcare, which have stringent security requirements, may face heightened risks.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 13 Nov 2025, 23:54 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats