KeycloakApplication · Redhat
CVE-2019-10157
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 · uneditedIt was found that Keycloak's Node.js adapter before version 4.8.3 did not properly verify the web token received from the server in its backchannel logout . An attacker with local access could use this to construct a malicious web token setting an NBF parameter that could prevent user access indefinitely.
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 · moderate confidenceKeycloak's Node.js adapter before version 4.8.3 fails to properly validate the web token during backchannel logout. An attacker with local access can craft a malicious token with an NBF (Not Before) parameter set to a future date, causing the validation to perpetually fail and locking users out indefinitely.
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
< 4.8.3
Single Sign OnApplication
< 7.3.2CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 the Keycloak Node.js adapter versionCheck your package.json or node_modules/@keycloak/keycloak-nodejs-admin-client/package.json for the version field. Run 'npm list @keycloak/keycloak-nodejs-admin-client' if using npm.Affected if The installed version is below 4.8.3 (for Keycloak) or the adapter is part of a RH SSO deployment below 7.3.2.
-
Determine if backchannel logout is configuredReview your Keycloak client configuration and application code for 'backchannelLogout: true' in the Keycloak adapter config, or inspect the client settings in the Keycloak admin console under the Client Settings for your application.Affected if Backchannel logout is enabled and the vulnerable adapter handles the logout token validation.
-
Check the underlying Keycloak or RH SSO server versionIf using the Keycloak server (not just the adapter), check the server version in the Keycloak admin console under Server Info or the product version for RH SSO. The adapter relies on server-side token generation.Affected if The server version is Keycloak < 4.8.3 or RH SSO < 7.3.2, which serve tokens to the vulnerable adapter.
You are affected if you run a Keycloak Node.js adapter version below 4.8.3 (or RH SSO below 7.3.2) with backchannel logout enabled, and the adapter processes logout tokens from a server in those vulnerable version ranges.
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 data4.8.37.3.2
Upgrade Keycloak Node.js adapter to version 4.8.3 or later, which includes proper NBF parameter validation during backchannel logout token verification.
Fix this in Keycloak
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,160.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-10157 — 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-2019-10157 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