VulnerabilityPublished 31 Jul 2026Updated 16 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-18209: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6 · Improper Validation of Consistency Within Input

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.4 Low.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.4Low

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:C/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
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: 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: 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 31 Jul 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 29 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.
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 26.6	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.6	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.7	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Data Grid 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–

AI-suggested

According to the Red Hat advisory, no effective mitigation is currently available that meets criteria for ease of use, applicability, or stability. Users should ensure client applications are correctly configured to avoid trusting injected parameters. Monitor Red Hat advisories for any future patches or official fixes.

Description

A flaw was found in the keycloak-services component of Keycloak, which handles OpenID Connect (OIDC) authentication flows. The issue occurs because the security check designed to prevent HTTP parameter pollution only inspects the query portion of a redirect URL and ignores the fragment portion. When a client is configured with a wildcard redirect URI, an attacker can use this to inject duplicate security parameters into the login response. If a client application is not configured correctly, it might trust the attacker's injected data instead of the real security information from Keycloak, leading to session fixation or account confusion.

Impact

The impact is limited to integrity loss, specifically the injection of duplicate OIDC response parameters leading to session fixation or account confusion. There is no confidentiality or availability impact. Exploitation requires a high attack complexity, no privileges, and user interaction. The vulnerability affects the integrity of authentication flows only if the client is misconfigured with a wildcard redirect URI and does not properly validate parameters.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Aug 2026, 14:49 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats