KeycloakApplication · Redhat
CVE-2016-8629
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedRed Hat Keycloak before version 2.4.0 did not correctly check permissions when handling service account user deletion requests sent to the rest server. An attacker with service account authentication could use this flaw to bypass normal permissions and delete users in a separate realm.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceKeycloak before 2.4.0 had a flaw in its REST server where service account authentication was not properly validating realm boundaries during user deletion operations. An attacker with valid service account credentials in one realm could send deletion requests to bypass normal permission checks and delete users in a different realm.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
KeycloakApplication
< 2.4.0
Single Sign OnApplication
= 7.1= 7.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Keycloak or SSO versionCheck the installed Keycloak or Red Hat Single Sign-On version. This is typically found in the product's about page, version file, or by querying the server's REST API endpoint (e.g., /auth/realms/master).Affected if The installed version is Keycloak before 2.4.0, or Red Hat SSO versions 7.1 or 7.2.
-
Verify service account functionality is enabledCheck the Keycloak/SSO realm configuration to determine if service accounts (OAuth2 client credentials flow) are enabled. This is configured in the realm settings under the 'Authentication' or 'Client' settings where 'Service Accounts Enabled' is turned on for OAuth2 clients.Affected if Service accounts are enabled for any OAuth2 client in any realm.
-
Confirm REST API user endpoints are accessibleVerify that the Keycloak Admin REST API endpoints for user management (such as /admin/realms/{realm}/users) are exposed and accessible. Check the client configuration to ensure the 'admin' client has proper permissions configured.Affected if The REST API for user management is accessible using service account credentials.
-
Check realm boundary configurationReview the Keycloak/SSO configuration to confirm whether realm isolation settings are properly enforced for service account operations. This typically involves examining the realm settings and client role mappings.Affected if Service account credentials from one realm can potentially access or modify users in another realm through the REST API.
You are affected if your Keycloak version is before 2.4.0 (or you are on RH SSO 7.1 or 7.2) AND service accounts are enabled, allowing REST API user deletion operations across realm boundaries.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor data2.4.0
Upgrade Keycloak to version 2.4.0 or later, which contains the proper permission boundary validation for service account operations.
Fix this in Keycloak
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-8629 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2016-8629 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data