Resource Allocation Without LimitsWeakness · CWE-770

CVE-2025-11419

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-12-23
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
A flaw was found in Keycloak. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) by repeatedly initiating TLS 1.2 client-initiated renegotiation requests to exhaust server CPU resources, making the service unavailable.

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 confidence

Keycloak is vulnerable to a denial of service attack where unauthenticated remote attackers can exhaust server CPU resources by repeatedly initiating TLS 1.2 client-initiated renegotiation requests, making the service unavailable.

MitigationDisable TLS 1.2 client-initiated renegotiation at the load balancer or reverse proxy level, or upgrade Keycloak to a version that mitigates this vulnerability.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Determine Keycloak version
    Locate the Keycloak installation and check the version. Common methods: check the startup logs for 'Keycloak X.X.X', look for a version file in the installation directory, or query the /health/ready endpoint if exposed. Compare this version against the affected version range listed in the Keycloak security advisory for CVE-2025-11419.
    Affected if The installed version falls within the affected version range AND TLS 1.2 client-initiated renegotiation is permitted.
  2. Identify the TLS terminator
    Determine whether Keycloak handles TLS termination directly or uses a load balancer/reverse proxy in front of it. Check the Keycloak configuration files (standalone.xml, standalone-ha.xml, or the.yaml/.properties configuration) for <security-realm> or SSL/TLS settings, and review any proxy configuration.
    Affected if TLS 1.2 client-initiated renegotiation is allowed at the terminator handling the Keycloak traffic.
  3. Verify TLS 1.2 renegotiation setting
    If Keycloak handles TLS directly, check the SSL configuration for the enabled protocols and whether client-initiated renegotiation is permitted. For Java-based Keycloak, examine the <ssl> element in the undertow subsystem of the configuration. Look for 'allow-renegotiation' or similar settings. If behind a proxy, inspect the proxy configuration for TLS renegotiation settings.
    Affected if TLS 1.2 client-initiated renegotiation is enabled in the configuration.
  4. Assess network exposure
    Determine if the Keycloak server is accessible from untrusted networks. Check firewall rules, network ACLs, and whether the TLS port is exposed to the internet or only to trusted internal networks.
    Affected if The Keycloak TLS port is accessible from untrusted or public networks.

You are affected if your Keycloak version is within the affected range AND TLS 1.2 client-initiated renegotiation is enabled AND the service is network-accessible to untrusted parties.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Disable TLS 1.2 client-initiated renegotiation at the load balancer or reverse proxy level, or upgrade Keycloak to a version that mitigates this vulnerability.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
7.0 hours of engineering $1,240
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-11419 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-11419 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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