Build Of KeycloakApplication · Redhat
CVE-2026-3121
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. An administrator with `manage-clients` permission can exploit a misconfiguration where this permission is equivalent to `manage-permissions`. This allows the administrator to escalate privileges and gain control over roles, users, or other administrative functions within the realm. This privilege escalation can occur when admin permissions are enabled at the realm level.
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 confidenceIn Keycloak, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists where an administrator granted only the `manage-clients` permission can exploit a misconfiguration that makes this permission functionally equivalent to `manage-permissions`. This flaw, which occurs when admin permissions are enabled at the realm level, allows the limited administrator to gain full control over realm roles, users, and other administrative functions beyond their intended scope.
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
Build Of KeycloakApplication
all versions
Jboss Enterprise Application PlatformApplication
= 8.0.0
Jboss Enterprise Application Platform Expansion PackApplication
all versions
Single Sign OnApplication
= 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
- 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 installed Keycloak or JBoss EAP versionCheck the installed version of Keycloak, Red Hat JBoss EAP, or Red Hat Single Sign-On using the product's version command or administration console. Compare against the affected version ranges (all versions for RH Build of Keycloak and JBoss EAP Expansion Pack, = 8.0.0 for JBoss EAP, = 7.0 for RH SSO).Affected if The installed version falls within any of the affected ranges (all versions for RH Build of Keycloak and EAP Expansion Pack, exactly 8.0.0 for JBoss EAP, exactly 7.0 for RH SSO).
-
Verify if realm-level admin permissions are enabledAccess the Keycloak admin console and navigate to the realm settings or authentication/authorization configuration. Inspect whether realm-level admin permission grants are enabled or configured.Affected if Realm-level admin permissions are enabled in the affected product installation.
-
Locate administrators with manage-clients permission onlyIn the admin console, review all realm administrators and their assigned permissions or roles. Identify accounts that have only the manage-clients permission assigned without additional elevated permissions.Affected if There exist administrators assigned only the manage-clients permission in the realm.
-
Audit permissions on manage-clients role for unexpected grantsExamine the manage-clients permission or role configuration. Check if it includes or implies additional permissions beyond client management, such as manage-permissions, manage-users, or realm-admin capabilities.Affected if The manage-clients permission configuration grants broader capabilities beyond just client management, functionally equaling manage-permissions.
-
Review realm roles and user role mappings for privilege escalation indicatorsCheck realm roles and individual user role mappings for any unexpected administrative role grants (such as realm-admin, manage-users, manage-realm) on users who should only have manage-clients access.Affected if Users with only intended manage-clients permission have acquired additional administrative roles or permissions beyond their intended scope.
A defender is affected if they run any of the affected products (RH Build of Keycloak all versions, JBoss EAP 8.0.0, JBoss EAP Expansion Pack all versions, RH SSO 7.0) with realm-level admin permissions enabled and have administrators with manage-clients permission that have unexpectedly acquired broader administrative capabilities.
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 dataReview and correct realm-level admin permission configurations to ensure `manage-clients` permission is properly scoped and does not grant broader administrative capabilities; implement least-privilege access controls and verify permission boundaries align with intended admin roles.
Fix this in Build Of Keycloak
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-3121 — 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-2026-3121 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