Skip to content

GHSA-wv3h-x6c4-r867 CVE-2025-14559

Keycloak services allows the issuance of access and refresh tokens for disabled users

Medium Maven
Severity
6.5 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.49%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.88% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
26.5.2
Upgrade org.keycloak:keycloak-services to this version or later

Description

A flaw was found in the keycloak-services component of Keycloak. This vulnerability allows the issuance of access and refresh tokens for disabled users, leading to unauthorized use of previously revoked privileges, via a business logic vulnerability in the Token Exchange implementation when a privileged client invokes the token exchange flow.

Affected versions

Maven

PackageVulnerableFixed in
org.keycloak:keycloak-services
>= 26.5.0, < 26.5.2
26.5.2
org.keycloak:keycloak-services
< 26.4.9
26.4.9

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 → 26.5.2

maven
<dependency><groupId>org.keycloak</groupId><artifactId>keycloak-services</artifactId><version>26.5.2</version></dependency>
gradle
implementation("org.keycloak:keycloak-services:26.5.2")

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.5

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

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

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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