KeycloakApplication · Redhat
CVE-2020-1744
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 before version 9.0.1. When configuring an Conditional OTP Authentication Flow as a post login flow of an IDP, the failure login events for OTP are not being sent to the brute force protection event queue. So BruteForceProtector does not handle this events.
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 9.0.1 fails to send OTP failure login events to the brute force protection event queue when Conditional OTP Authentication Flow is configured as a post-login flow of an Identity Provider (IDP). This allows the BruteForceProtector to not handle these events, effectively bypassing brute force protection for OTP validation in this specific configuration.
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
< 9.0.1CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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.
-
Check the installed Keycloak versionRun 'kc.sh --version' or check the Keycloak server startup logs for the version number. Compare it to 9.0.1; versions below 9.0.1 are affected.Affected if The installed Keycloak version is lower than 9.0.1
-
Identify if Conditional OTP Authentication Flow is configuredIn the Keycloak admin console, navigate to Authentication > Flows. Look for flows named 'Conditional OTP' or similar custom flows that implement conditional OTP logic.Affected if A Conditional OTP Authentication Flow is defined in the system
-
Check if the Conditional OTP flow is used as an IDP post-login flowIn the Keycloak admin console, go to Identity Providers > [Select IDP] > Mapper. Look for the 'Post Login' flow setting or navigate to the IDP configuration to find the post-login authentication flow setting. Verify if the Conditional OTP flow is assigned there.Affected if The Conditional OTP Authentication Flow is assigned as the post-login flow for an Identity Provider
-
Verify brute force protection configurationIn the Keycloak admin console, navigate to Realm Settings > Security Defenses > Brute Force Detection. Confirm that brute force protection is enabled.Affected if Brute force protection is enabled AND the above three conditions are true
The environment is affected if Keycloak version is below 9.0.1 AND a Conditional OTP Authentication Flow is configured as an IDP post-login flow, allowing OTP brute force attacks to bypass detection.
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 data9.0.1
Upgrade Keycloak to version 9.0.1 or later to ensure OTP failure events are properly routed to the brute force protection mechanism.
Fix this in Keycloak
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-1744 — 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-2020-1744 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