VulnerabilityPublished 26 Mar 2026Updated 2 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-3121: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 · Incorrect Privilege Assignment

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% 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:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 Mar 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 30 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 26.4	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 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-2026-3121, organizations should first audit and review all realm-level administrative permissions in their Keycloak deployments, ensuring that 'manage-clients' permissions are not inadvertently granting broader 'manage-permissions' capabilities. Restrict the assignment of 'manage-clients' permission to trusted administrators only and consider implementing the principle of least privilege by minimizing administrative roles. Monitor administrative actions and enable detailed logging to detect unusual privilege escalations or configuration changes. Apply any official patches or updates from Red Hat promptly once available. If patches are not yet released, consider temporarily disabling realm-level administrative permissions or isolating administrative functions to reduce exposure. Employ multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all administrators to reduce the risk of compromised credentials being exploited. Regularly review Keycloak configuration and permission mappings to detect and correct misconfigurations. Additionally, conduct periodic security assessments and penetration testing focused on identity and access management components to identify similar privilege escalation risks.

Description

A flaw was found in Keycloak. An administrator with `manage-clients` permission can exploit a misconfiguration where this permission is equivalent to `manage-permissions`. This allows the administrator to escalate privileges and gain control over roles, users, or other administrative functions within the realm. This privilege escalation can occur when admin permissions are enabled at the realm level.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-3121 is unauthorized privilege escalation within Keycloak realms, which can lead to compromise of identity and access management controls. An attacker with 'manage-clients' permission can gain broader administrative rights, potentially modifying user roles, permissions, and access policies. This undermines the confidentiality and integrity of the authentication system, risking unauthorized access to sensitive applications and data protected by Keycloak. Although availability is not directly affected, the breach of administrative controls can facilitate further attacks or persistent unauthorized access. Organizations relying on Keycloak for critical authentication services, especially those with complex realm-level administration, face increased risk of insider threats or compromised admin accounts being leveraged for lateral movement. The vulnerability could also impact compliance with security policies and regulations requiring strict access controls. Since exploitation requires existing administrative privileges, the threat is more significant in environments with multiple administrators or delegated permissions. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the medium severity score and potential for significant damage warrant prompt mitigation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Apr 2026, 03:21 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats