VulnerabilityPublished 26 Mar 2026Updated 2 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-3190: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 · Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% 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:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 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 Hatredhat/keycloak`pkg:rpm/redhat/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-2026-3190, organizations should apply the official patches or updates provided by Red Hat for Keycloak 26.4 as soon as they become available. In the absence of patches, administrators should audit and restrict access to resource server client tokens, ensuring that only trusted users receive tokens capable of interacting with the UMA Protection API. Implement strict role assignment policies to limit the issuance of tokens to users with the 'uma_protection' role only when necessary. Additionally, enable comprehensive logging and monitoring of UMA API calls to detect unusual enumeration activity. Network-level controls such as segmentation and access restrictions can reduce exposure by limiting which users or systems can authenticate to Keycloak. Regularly review and rotate credentials to minimize the risk of compromised tokens being used to exploit this vulnerability. Finally, conduct security awareness training to reduce insider threat risks and encourage prompt reporting of suspicious activity.

Description

A flaw was found in Keycloak. The User-Managed Access (UMA) 2.0 Protection API endpoint for permission tickets fails to enforce the `uma_protection` role check. This allows any authenticated user with a token issued for a resource server client, even without the `uma_protection` role, to enumerate all permission tickets in the system. This vulnerability partial leads to information disclosure.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-3190 is unauthorized information disclosure. Attackers who gain authenticated access to Keycloak can enumerate all permission tickets, revealing details about resource access requests and consents. This exposure can undermine confidentiality by leaking sensitive authorization metadata, which could be used to map out protected resources and user permissions. While the vulnerability does not allow modification or denial of service, the disclosed information could facilitate targeted attacks, social engineering, or privilege escalation by providing attackers with insights into the access control landscape. Organizations relying on Keycloak for identity and access management, especially those managing sensitive or regulated data, face increased risk of data leakage and compliance violations. The vulnerability affects any deployment of Red Hat's Keycloak 26.4 with UMA 2.0 enabled, potentially impacting cloud services, enterprise applications, and government systems. Although exploitation requires authentication, the risk remains significant in environments where user credentials may be compromised or where insider threats exist.

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