CVE-2026-1190VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jan 2026Updated 6 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-1190: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 · Missing XML Validation

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.1 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.1Low

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:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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 26 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 2026-10-26.

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 26.4.10	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–
Red HatRed Hat Single Sign-On 7	Affected–	Fixed in–
Mavenorg.keycloak/keycloak`pkg:maven/org.keycloak/keycloak`Other threats	Affected =26.4	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-1190, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Monitor Red Hat and Keycloak vendor advisories closely for patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available. 2) Review and harden SAML configurations in Keycloak, ensuring strict validation of all SAML assertion elements, including timestamps, using custom validation logic if necessary. 3) Implement additional session management controls outside of SAML assertions, such as server-side session expiration timers and re-authentication requirements after defined intervals. 4) Employ network-level protections to restrict access to Keycloak servers, limiting exposure to trusted clients and reducing attack surface. 5) Enable detailed logging and monitoring of SAML authentication events to detect anomalies such as unusually long session durations or repeated authentication attempts with delayed timestamps. 6) Educate administrators and developers about the risks of improper SAML validation and encourage secure coding and configuration practices. 7) Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or SAML-specific security gateways capable of validating assertion timestamps independently. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on compensating controls and proactive monitoring until an official patch is available.

Description

A flaw was found in Keycloak's SAML brokering functionality. When Keycloak is configured as a client in a Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) setup, it fails to validate the `NotOnOrAfter` timestamp within the `SubjectConfirmationData`. This allows an attacker to delay the expiration of SAML responses, potentially extending the time a response is considered valid and leading to unexpected session durations or resource consumption.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-1190 is the potential extension of authenticated session durations beyond their intended expiration, which can undermine session management policies. This may allow unauthorized prolonged access if an attacker can manipulate SAML responses or if legitimate users retain sessions longer than expected, increasing the risk of session hijacking or misuse. Extended sessions can also lead to resource exhaustion on authentication servers, potentially degrading performance or availability indirectly. While confidentiality is not directly affected, the integrity of session expiration controls is compromised. Organizations relying on Keycloak for SAML-based authentication, especially in environments with strict session timeouts or regulatory requirements for session management, may face compliance risks. The vulnerability's exploitation complexity and requirement for user interaction limit widespread exploitation, but targeted attacks against high-value systems using Keycloak could leverage this flaw to maintain persistent access.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Mar 2026, 20:49 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats