CVE-2023-6291
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 the redirect_uri validation logic in Keycloak. This issue may allow a bypass of otherwise explicitly allowed hosts. A successful attack may lead to an access token being stolen, making it possible for the attacker to impersonate other users.
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 confidenceA validation flaw in Keycloak's redirect_uri logic allows attackers to bypass explicitly allowed host restrictions, potentially enabling theft of access tokens and user impersonation.
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< 22.0.7all versions= 7.6= 4.11= 4.12= 4.9= 4.10= 4.9= 4.10= 4.9= 4.10= 6.0= 7.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/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.
-
Identify if Keycloak or RHSSO is deployedCheck running processes or installed packages for keycloak, rh-sso, or jboss-based services. Look for the Keycloak administration console or known installation paths like /opt/keycloak or /opt/rh/sso.Affected if Keycloak or Red Hat Single Sign-On is installed and running
-
Determine the installed Keycloak versionRun 'kc.sh --version' from the Keycloak bin directory, or check the server logs for the startup version banner. For RHSSO, check the RPM package version with 'rpm -qa | grep sso' or inspect the server's version endpoint.Affected if The version is lower than 22.0.7, or for RHSSO any version indicates potential exposure
-
Identify OAuth2/OpenID clients configured in KeycloakLog into the Keycloak admin console and navigate to Clients under each realm, or query the realm-client endpoint via REST API to list all registered clients.Affected if Any OAuth2 or OpenID clients are registered in Keycloak realms
-
Review registered redirect URIs for clientsIn the admin console, select each client and inspect the Valid Redirect URIs field. Look for entries containing wildcards (*), multiple host patterns, or URIs referencing untrusted domains.Affected if Any client has a redirect URI pattern that allows arbitrary hosts or uses wildcard configurations like '*' or 'https://*.example.com'
-
Check for client configurations using relative pathsInspect the Valid Redirect URIs field in client settings. Identify any entries that are relative paths or lack an explicit scheme and host restriction.Affected if Clients use relative or loosely restricted redirect URI patterns that could be exploited
-
Audit client credentials and grant settingsReview each client's configuration for Enabled (must be ON), Standard Flow Enabled, and Direct Access Grants Enabled. Check if any client uses public access type with sensitive scopes.Affected if Clients with public access type and broad OAuth scopes are present alongside the vulnerable redirect URI configuration
A user is affected if they run a version of Keycloak below 22.0.7 or any version of RHSSO and have OAuth2 clients with loosely configured or wildcard redirect URIs that could be exploited.
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.
dbcve · scoped22.0.7
Apply the vendor-supplied patch or upgrade Keycloak to the fixed version, and audit all registered redirect URIs for any unauthorized or suspicious entries.
Keycloak 22.0.7 or later
- 1. Identify all Keycloak instances currently running versions prior to 22.0.7
- 2. Review the Keycloak 22.0.7 release notes and migration guide for any breaking changes relevant to your deployment
- 3. Create a backup of your current Keycloak configuration, database, and realm data
- 4. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first to validate compatibility with your custom themes, extensions, and integrations
- 5. Schedule a maintenance window for the production upgrade
- 6. Stop the running Keycloak services
- 7. Upgrade Keycloak to version 22.0.7 or later following the official upgrade documentation
- 8. Verify that the redirect_uri validation is working correctly by testing known redirect scenarios
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 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 $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-6291 — 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-2023-6291 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