Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.30% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceRed Hat · Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.2
Official source article: Red Hat RHSA-2026:2363 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| mavenorg.keycloak:keycloak-services | < 26.2.13 | 26.2.13 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 13 Feb 2026 |
| mavenorg.keycloak:keycloak-services | >= 26.5.0, < 26.5.3 | 26.5.3 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 13 Feb 2026 |
| mavenorg.keycloak:keycloak-services | >= 26.3.0, < 26.4.9 | 26.4.9 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 13 Feb 2026 |
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch availableA flaw was found in Keycloak. A significant Broken Access Control vulnerability exists in the UserManagedPermissionService (UMA Protection API). When updating or deleting a UMA policy associated with multiple resources, the authorization check only verifies the caller's ownership against the first resource in the policy's list. This allows a user (Owner A) who owns one resource (RA) to update a shared policy and modify authorization rules for other resources (e.g., RB) in that same policy, even if those other resources are owned by a different user (Owner B). This constitutes a horizontal privilege escalation.
A flaw was found in Keycloak. A significant Broken Access Control vulnerability exists in the UserManagedPermissionService (UMA Protection API). When updating or deleting a UMA policy associated with multiple resources, the authorization check only verifies the caller's ownership against the first resource in the policy's list. This allows a user (Owner A) who owns one resource (RA) to update a shared policy and modify authorization rules for other resources (e.g., RB) in that same policy, even if those other resources are owned by a different user (Owner B). This constitutes a horizontal privilege escalation.
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may gain additional privileges.
A flaw was found in Keycloak. A significant Broken Access Control vulnerability exists in the UserManagedPermissionService (UMA Protection API). When updating or deleting a UMA policy associated with multiple resources, the authorization check only verifies the caller's ownership against the first resource in the policy's list. This allows a user (Owner A) who owns one resource (RA) to update a shared policy and modify authorization rules for other resources (e.g., RB) in that same policy, even if those other resources are owned by a different user (Owner B). This constitutes a horizontal privilege escalation.
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may gain additional privileges.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-266: Incorrect Privilege Assignment. A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 9 Feb 2026 · Last source change 10 Feb 2026, 01:04 UTC · CWE-266 · Incorrect Privilege Assignment
Missing structured fields: affected versions. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.