VulnerabilityPublished 28 May 2026Updated 20 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-9798: Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 · Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness

Affects Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 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 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: 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 28 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.

cwe-305

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 26.4.14	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 26.6.5	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat advises ensuring that Client-Initiated Backchannel Authentication (CIBA) is not enabled in Keycloak realms unless explicitly required. If CIBA is enabled, it is recommended to disable it to prevent bypass of brute-force protection. Administrators should consult Keycloak documentation for managing CIBA configuration.

Description

A flaw was found in Keycloak, an open-source identity and access management solution. When a user account is temporarily locked due to repeated failed login attempts, an attacker with valid client credentials can exploit the Client-Initiated Backchannel Authentication (CIBA) flow to bypass this brute-force protection. This allows continued authentication attempts and token issuance even when the account should be locked, potentially enabling further unauthorized access attempts.

Impact

The impact is limited to bypassing brute-force protection on locked user accounts via the CIBA flow, potentially allowing continued authentication attempts and token issuance. Confidentiality impact is low, with no integrity or availability impact reported. The vulnerability only affects deployments where CIBA is enabled and configured, which is not the default in Red Hat's Keycloak builds. There are no known exploits in the wild at this time.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Aug 2026, 13:17 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats