Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 0.40% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceRed Hat · Red Hat Build of Keycloak
Low 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-quarkus-server | <= 26.2.5 | Not stated | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 15 Jan 2026 |
Low technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verifiedA flaw was found in Keycloak. This improper input validation vulnerability occurs because Keycloak accepts RFC-compliant matrix parameters in URL path segments, while common reverse proxy configurations may ignore or mishandle them. A remote attacker can craft requests to mask path segments, potentially bypassing proxy-level path filtering. This could expose administrative or sensitive endpoints that operators believe are not externally reachable.
A flaw was found in Keycloak. This improper input validation vulnerability occurs because Keycloak accepts RFC-compliant matrix parameters in URL path segments, while common reverse proxy configurations may ignore or mishandle them. A remote attacker can craft requests to mask path segments, potentially bypassing proxy-level path filtering. This could expose administrative or sensitive endpoints that operators believe are not externally reachable.
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
A flaw was found in Keycloak. This improper input validation vulnerability occurs because Keycloak accepts RFC-compliant matrix parameters in URL path segments, while common reverse proxy configurations may ignore or mishandle them. A remote attacker can craft requests to mask path segments, potentially bypassing proxy-level path filtering. This could expose administrative or sensitive endpoints that operators believe are not externally reachable.
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
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-20: Improper Input Validation. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 15 Jan 2026 · Last source change 9 Aug 2026, 19:03 UTC · CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation
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.