GHSA-j628-q885-8gr5 CVE-2023-6484

Keycloak vulnerable to log Injection during WebAuthn authentication or registration

Medium Maven

Severity: 5.3 / 10; Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 1.01%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 63.07% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-117 Improper Output Neutralization for Logs
Fix: 22.0.9; Upgrade org.keycloak:keycloak-services to this version or later

Description

A flaw was found in keycloak 22.0.5. Errors in browser client during setup/auth with "Security Key login" (WebAuthn) are written into the form, send to Keycloak and logged without escaping allowing log injection.

Acknowledgements: Special thanks toTheresa Henze for reporting this issue and helping us improve our security.

Affected versions

Maven

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
org.keycloak:keycloak-services	`< 22.0.9`	`22.0.9`
org.keycloak:keycloak-services	`>= 23.0.0, < 23.0.5`	`23.0.5`

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.

org.keycloak:keycloak-services Maven → `22.0.9`

maven

<dependency><groupId>org.keycloak</groupId><artifactId>keycloak-services</artifactId><version>22.0.9</version></dependency>

gradle

implementation("org.keycloak:keycloak-services:22.0.9")

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-117: Improper Output Neutralization for Logs

The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.

How to prevent it

Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.

References

Advisories

Packages

github.com/keycloak/keycloak

Timeline

Apr 17, 2024 Published
Jul 21, 2026 Last updated by the source
Nov 1, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-v3f7-2p4r-mwfw Keycloak vulnerable to cross-site scripting (xss) via case-insensitive uri validation bypass	High	Also affects org.keycloak:keycloak-services
GHSA-9jrw-8xf7-xqhq Keycloak vulnerable to information disclosure through arbitrary filesystem path probing	Medium	Also affects org.keycloak:keycloak-services
GHSA-w3p3-7cjg-vgfw Keycloak allows unauthorized access to resources via uma permission ticket bypass	Medium	Also affects org.keycloak:keycloak-services
GHSA-f5p5-6xmx-p252 Keycloak vulnerable to authorization bypass via incorrect uri comparison	High	Also affects org.keycloak:keycloak-services
GHSA-r7rc-c989-86g6 Keycloak: Attacker can re-enable and take over disabled clients via registration access token	Medium	Also affects org.keycloak:keycloak-services
GHSA-4gv3-mc9p-5wqc Keycloak: Unauthenticated account takeover via reset-credentials flow bypass	Critical	Also affects org.keycloak:keycloak-services
GHSA-6g26-7cx5-mrrg Keycloak: Information disclosure due to user profile permission bypass	Low	Also affects org.keycloak:keycloak-services
GHSA-cpf7-j4cf-vqx4 Keycloak has an Out-of-bounds Read	Medium	Also affects org.keycloak:keycloak-services

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