VulnerabilityPublished 5 Aug 2026Updated 31 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-16071: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 · LDAP Injection

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 3 Nov 2026, 22:58 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 24% 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 5 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 3 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 26.4.14	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.6	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.6	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.5	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released an updated package, Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4.14, which includes a fix for this vulnerability. Users should apply this security update to remediate the issue. Before applying the update, it is recommended to back up existing installations, including applications, configuration files, and databases. There is no indication that any other mitigations or workarounds are available or required. Patch status is confirmed by the vendor advisory.

Description

A flaw was found in the LDAP storage provider of Keycloak, which is used to federate user identities from external directories. The issue occurs when a delegated administrator performs a search using a specific LDAP entry Distinguished Name (DN). Due to missing validation, the system allows lookups for users located outside the configured search boundary, leading to the disclosure of account information from unauthorized parts of the directory and unintended importing of those users into local storage.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows an attacker with delegated administrative privileges to disclose user account details from unauthorized LDAP organizational units (OUs) outside the configured search boundary. Additionally, it can cause unintended importing of these unauthorized users into the local Keycloak storage. This may lead to information disclosure and potential integrity issues within the local user database. The vulnerability does not impact availability and requires low privileges (delegated admin) but no user interaction.

CWE-269Improper Privilege Management (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Restful Privilege Elevation (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Abuse (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Escalation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 13 Aug 2026, 17:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-269

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats