VulnerabilityPublished 20 Jan 2026Updated 2 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-1180: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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 20 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 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
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 26.4.11	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Build of Keycloak	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform Expansion Pack	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Until an official patch is released by Red Hat, organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Restrict network egress from the Keycloak server to only trusted and necessary endpoints using firewall rules or network segmentation to prevent unauthorized outbound HTTP requests. 2) Implement strict validation and allowlisting of jwks_uri values during client registration to ensure only trusted URIs are accepted, potentially by disabling dynamic client registration if not required. 3) Monitor Keycloak logs for unusual outbound requests or client registrations specifying unexpected jwks_uri values to detect potential exploitation attempts. 4) Use Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) to detect and block SSRF patterns targeting Keycloak. 5) Review and harden cloud metadata service access controls to prevent unauthorized retrieval even if SSRF occurs. 6) Plan for rapid deployment of patches once available and test updates in staging environments. 7) Educate developers and administrators about the risks of SSRF in dynamic client registration workflows to avoid similar issues in future configurations.

Description

A flaw was identified in Keycloak’s OpenID Connect Dynamic Client Registration feature when clients authenticate using private_key_jwt. The issue allows a client to specify an arbitrary jwks_uri, which Keycloak then retrieves without validating the destination. This enables attackers to coerce the Keycloak server into making HTTP requests to internal or restricted network resources. As a result, attackers can probe internal services and cloud metadata endpoints, creating an information disclosure and reconnaissance risk.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-1180 is information disclosure and reconnaissance within an organization's internal network or cloud infrastructure. By exploiting this SSRF vulnerability, attackers can leverage the Keycloak server as a proxy to access internal services that are not exposed externally, including sensitive APIs, databases, or cloud metadata endpoints that may contain credentials or configuration data. This can facilitate further attacks such as privilege escalation, lateral movement, or data exfiltration. The vulnerability does not directly allow code execution or denial of service but significantly increases the attack surface by exposing internal resources. Organizations using Keycloak 26.4 in critical environments, especially those with strict network segmentation or cloud deployments, face elevated risk. The absence of authentication requirements and user interaction lowers the barrier for exploitation, potentially enabling automated scanning or targeted attacks. Although no active exploits are currently known, the vulnerability could be leveraged by attackers to gather intelligence for subsequent attacks, making it a strategic risk for enterprises relying on Keycloak for identity and access management.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Apr 2026, 03:20 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats