dbcve.org
Build Of KeycloakApplication · Redhat

CVE-2026-7500

MEDIUM · 5.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-30
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
60/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable 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
When Keycloak is started with `--features-disabled=account,account-api`, the Account REST API is only partially disabled. Five endpoints under the versioned path `/account/v1alpha1` remain fully functional — including both read and write operations — because they lack the `checkAccountApiEnabled()` gate that correctly blocks four other endpoints in the same REST service class. The user needs to have permissions to use the API.

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

When Keycloak is started with --features-disabled=account,account-api to disable the Account REST API, five endpoints under /account/v1alpha1 remain accessible because they lack the checkAccountApiEnabled() authorization gate that properly blocks four other endpoints in the same REST service class. This allows authenticated users with account permissions to perform both read and write operations on these five endpoints despite the feature being intended for disablement.

MitigationAdd the missing checkAccountApiEnabled() authorization check to the five remaining endpoints in the Account REST service class to enforce consistent disabled-state behavior across all account API endpoints.

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
Affected:all versions

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

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. Verify Keycloak startup configuration
    Check the process arguments or startup scripts to confirm Keycloak was launched with --features-disabled=account,account-api flags
    Affected if The flags --features-disabled=account,account-api are present in the startup command
  2. Confirm account API endpoints respond
    Send an HTTP GET request to http://<keycloak-host>/auth/realms/<realm>/account/v1alpha1/ with valid authentication credentials
    Affected if The endpoint returns HTTP 200 instead of 403 Forbidden
  3. Test read operations on unprotected endpoints
    Send authenticated GET requests to /account/v1alpha1/ endpoint paths (such as /account/v1alpha1/profile, /account/v1alpha1/credentials, or similar paths under this base URL)
    Affected if Read operations return data instead of being blocked with 403
  4. Test write operations on unprotected endpoints
    Send authenticated PUT/POST requests to /account/v1alpha1/ endpoint paths with payload data
    Affected if Write operations succeed (HTTP 200/204) instead of being rejected with 403
  5. Compare with protected endpoints behavior
    Test endpoints that should be blocked, such as other paths in the same Account REST service class that do include checkAccountApiEnabled()
    Affected if Protected endpoints return 403 while the five remaining endpoints return 200, indicating inconsistent enforcement

A user is affected if Keycloak runs with --features-disabled=account,account-api but five /account/v1alpha1 endpoints remain accessible and return successful responses for authenticated users with account permissions.

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

Add the missing checkAccountApiEnabled() authorization check to the five remaining endpoints in the Account REST service class to enforce consistent disabled-state behavior across all account API endpoints.

Fix this in Build Of Keycloak Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing5.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
17.0 hours of engineering $2,970
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7500 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2026-7500 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