VulnerabilityPublished 21 Sep 2026Updated 24 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-94217: Red Hat Build of Keycloak · Missing Authorization

Affects Red Hat Build of KeycloakSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.5 Low.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 00:01 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.5Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
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: 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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: 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 21 Sep 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 5 Nov 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	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Single Sign-On 7	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat currently does not provide a patch or effective mitigation for this vulnerability. The advisory states that available mitigation options do not meet criteria for ease of use, applicability, or stability. Users should monitor Red Hat's advisory page for updates and consider compensating controls where possible. No urgent remediation actions are available at this time.

Description

A flaw was found in the User-Managed Access (UMA) implementation of Keycloak. The issue occurs in the authorization token endpoint when processing permission tickets. If two different users own resources with the same name, the system incorrectly merges the permissions from both resources when one user requests an authorization token. This allows an attacker to gain access scopes on a victim's resource that were never intended to be shared.

Impact

An attacker who can exploit this vulnerability may gain unauthorized access scopes on another user's UMA-protected resource due to improper permission merging. This could lead to unauthorized privilege escalation within the affected Keycloak instance. However, exploitation requires a resource name collision between different users and prior interaction by the victim, limiting the attack's feasibility. The vulnerability does not impact confidentiality but has a low integrity impact and no availability impact.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Sep 2026, 03:56 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats