KeycloakApplication · Redhat
CVE-2019-10169
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 · uneditedA flaw was found in Keycloak’s user-managed access interface, where it would permit a script to be set in the UMA policy. This flaw allows an authenticated attacker with UMA permissions to configure a malicious script to trigger and execute arbitrary code with the permissions of the user running application.
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 confidenceA remote code execution vulnerability exists in Keycloak's user-managed access (UMA) interface. The flaw allows authenticated attackers with UMA permissions to configure malicious scripts within UMA policies, enabling arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the user running the Keycloak application.
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
< 8.0.0CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 Keycloak versionCheck the installed Keycloak version by inspecting the version file, startup logs, or the Keycloak admin console (Server Info section). Common locations: $KEYCLOAK_HOME/keycloak-version.txt or check the JAR/WAR file manifest.Affected if The installed version is earlier than 8.0.0 (e.g., 7.x, 6.x, or earlier)
-
Verify if UMA is enabledCheck the realm settings in Keycloak admin console under the 'Realm Settings' > 'Login' tab, or inspect the realm JSON configuration file for the 'UMA' authentication flow configuration.Affected if User-Managed Access (UMA) is enabled for the realm being assessed
-
Examine UMA policy configurationsNavigate to 'Resources' > select a resource > 'Permissions' tab in the Keycloak admin console, or inspect the realm database for entries in the RESOURCE_POLICY table that may contain script-based policies.Affected if UMA policies exist that use script-based authorization (any policy with script content in the configuration)
-
Review authorization scriptsCheck the 'Authorization' > 'Policies' section in the admin console for any JavaScript-based policies, or examine the server file system under $KEYCLOAK_HOME/standalone/data/authorizationscripts/ for uploaded script files.Affected if Any JavaScript or executable scripts are configured in UMA policies
You are affected if Keycloak version is below 8.0.0 AND UMA is enabled with any script-based policies configured.
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 data8.0.0
Upgrade Keycloak to the vendor-provided patched version and audit all existing UMA policies to identify and remove any malicious scripts that may have been configured.
Fix this in Keycloak
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-10169 — 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-2019-10169 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