GHSA-hhq2-3832-xxcv CVE-2026-43001 PYSEC-2026-602

OpenStack Keystone has an Incorrect Authorization Issue

High PyPI

Severity: 7.9 / 10; High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.47%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 40.38% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 29.0.2; Upgrade keystone to this version or later

Description

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone 13 through 29. POST /v3/credentials did not validate that the caller-supplied project_id for an EC2-type credential matched the project of the authenticating application credential. This allowed an attacker holding an unrestricted application credential for project A to create an EC2 credential targeting project B; a subsequent /v3/ec2tokens exchange would then issue a Keystone token scoped to project B while still carrying the original app_cred_id, enabling cross-project lateral movement within the credential owner's role footprint.

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
keystone	`>= 13.0.0, <= 29.0.1`	No fix yet
keystone	`>= 14.0.0, < 27.0.2` `>= 28.0.0, < 28.0.2` `>= 29.0.0, < 29.0.2`	`27.0.2` `28.0.2` `29.0.2`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

keystone PyPI → `29.0.2`

pip

pip install --upgrade "keystone>=29.0.2"

poetry

poetry add "keystone>=29.0.2"

uv

uv add "keystone>=29.0.2"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.9

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

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: High
Privileges required: High
User interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: Low

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Advisories

Issue reports

bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi

Packages

review.opendev.org/c/openstack/keystone

Timeline

May 1, 2026 Published
Oct 26, 2026 Last updated by the source
Nov 1, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-whqr-fgm5-x77q OpenStack Keystone's federated token rescoping mechanism doesn't propagate the original token's expiry to the newly issued token	High	Also affects keystone
GHSA-q623-f4j4-p4xj OpenStack Keystone has an Incorrect Authorization issue	High	Also affects keystone
GHSA-2r23-2g6v-2m5f OpenStack Keystone has an Authorization Bypass	High	Also affects keystone
GHSA-8f8m-wrvr-wcvf OpenStack Keystone doesn't verify that the user supplied in the authentication request matches the owner of the application credential	High	Also affects keystone
GHSA-pfx2-9x9m-7ghx OpenStack Keystone: LDAP identity backend does not convert enabled attribute to boolean	High	Also affects keystone
GHSA-4phw-6824-6cfp OpenStack Keystone: Restricted application credentials can create EC2 credentials	Medium	Also affects keystone
GHSA-hcqg-5g63-7j9h OpenStack Keystone allows /v3/ec2tokens or /v3/s3tokens request with valid AWS Signature to provide Keystone authorization.	High	Also affects keystone
GHSA-cc99-whm5-mmq3 Openstack Keystone Incorrect Authorization vulnerability	Critical	Also affects keystone

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor