CVE-2026-2733VulnerabilityPublished 19 Feb 2026Updated 6 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-2733: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 · Improper Authorization

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.8 Low.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.8Low

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 30% 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:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: 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: 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 19 Feb 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 2026-10-25.

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 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–
Red HatRed Hat Single Sign-On 7	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-2733, organizations should apply any patches or updates provided by Red Hat for Keycloak 26.4 as soon as they become available. In the absence of an immediate patch, administrators should implement compensating controls such as: 1) Rotating credentials and tokens associated with disabled Docker registry clients to invalidate previously issued tokens. 2) Monitoring and auditing token issuance logs to detect anomalous or unauthorized token generation. 3) Restricting administrative privileges to minimize the risk of misuse or compromise of accounts capable of managing Docker registry clients. 4) Employing network-level access controls or firewall rules to limit access to container registries from unauthorized sources. 5) Considering temporary disabling or limiting the use of Docker registry clients in Keycloak until a fix is applied. Additionally, organizations should review their container registry authentication workflows to ensure that disabling clients effectively revokes access and consider alternative authentication mechanisms if necessary.

Description

A flaw was identified in the Docker v2 authentication endpoint of Keycloak, where tokens continue to be issued even after a Docker registry client has been administratively disabled. This means that turning the client “Enabled” setting to OFF does not fully prevent access. As a result, previously valid credentials can still be used to obtain authentication tokens. This weakens administrative controls and could allow unintended access to container registry resources.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the weakening of administrative controls over Docker registry clients integrated with Keycloak. Organizations relying on Keycloak 26.4 to manage authentication for container registries may find that disabling a client does not fully prevent access, allowing previously valid credentials to continue obtaining authentication tokens. This can lead to unauthorized access to container images, potentially exposing sensitive application code, configurations, or proprietary software. Such unauthorized access could facilitate further attacks, including supply chain compromises or unauthorized deployments. Although the vulnerability requires high privileges to exploit, insider threats or compromised administrative accounts could leverage this flaw to maintain or regain access despite administrative attempts to revoke it. The impact on confidentiality and integrity is moderate, while availability is not affected. Given the widespread adoption of container technologies and Keycloak in enterprise environments, this vulnerability could affect organizations globally, especially those with mature containerized application deployments and strict access control requirements.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Mar 2026, 20:49 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats