VulnerabilityPublished 6 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-96447: Red Hat Build of Keycloak · Improper Authentication

Affects Red Hat Build of KeycloakSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.2 Medium.

Data as of 6 Nov 2026, 06:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.2Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (redhat)	CVSS 3.1	4.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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 6 Nov 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 Hat Build of Keycloakkeycloak-services	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Build of Keycloakrhbk/keycloak-rhel9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Single Sign-On 7keycloak-services	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

As of the current advisory, no mitigation or patch meeting Red Hat's criteria for ease of use, deployment, and applicability is available. Users should monitor Red Hat's advisory page for updates on fixes or mitigations. Administrators should exercise caution when deleting and recreating clients with the same client ID to reduce risk.

Description

CVE-2026-96447 is a moderate severity vulnerability in the TokenManager component of Red Hat Build of Keycloak. It arises when validating stateless access tokens if the original user ID no longer exists. Keycloak falls back to identifying the user by username without verifying the identity matches the original token subject. This flaw could allow an attacker holding an old token to gain access to a newly created service account sharing the same client ID as a deleted one. Exploitation requires an administrator to delete and recreate a client with the same ID while the attacker holds a valid token from the original client. No patch or mitigation meeting Red Hat's criteria is currently available.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows an attacker to gain the identity and permissions of a replacement service account by reusing an old stateless token. This can lead to unauthorized access to resources and functionality associated with that service account. The impact is limited to confidentiality and integrity with low severity, as the attacker must have a valid token and the environment must allow client deletion and recreation with the same client ID.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Nov 2026, 06:20 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats