VulnerabilityPublished 19 May 2026Updated 26 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-8922: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 · Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% 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 19 May 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 26.4	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.4	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat build of Keycloak 26.4.13	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 26.6.3	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated Keycloak 26.6.3 images that address this vulnerability along with other security issues. Users should upgrade to Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.3 as provided in the official Red Hat Customer Portal advisories RHSA-2026:25097 and RHSA-2026:25098. Before applying the update, back up existing installations including applications, configuration files, and databases. No separate patch for CVE-2026-8922 alone is provided; remediation is via upgrading to the fixed 26.6.3 version. Monitor Red Hat advisories for any further updates.

Description

A flaw was found in Keycloak. When both realm-level and client-level `notBefore` revocation policies are configured, Keycloak's OpenID Connect (OIDC) Introspection feature fails to properly honor the realm-level policy. This allows tokens that should have been revoked to remain active, potentially leading to unauthorized access or continued session validity. This could impact the security of systems utilizing Keycloak for identity and access management.

Impact

Tokens that should have been revoked due to realm-level 'notBefore' policies may remain valid, potentially allowing unauthorized access or continued session validity. This undermines the security of authentication and authorization processes in affected Keycloak deployments. The impact is limited to confidentiality and integrity, with no direct availability impact reported. No known exploits in the wild have been reported.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Jun 2026, 12:21 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats