Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
Keycloak policies meant to block password-based token grants can be bypassed in specific configurations. If exposed, an attacker may obtain tokens despite an explicit block, creating unauthorized access and information disclosure risk.
Executive priority
Treat as a near-term identity control fix, especially where Keycloak protects sensitive internal or customer applications. It is not marked actively exploited, but token issuance bypasses can undermine access controls.
Technical view
The flaw affects Keycloak Client Policies in org.keycloak.protocol.oidc. When client-type, client-roles, client-attributes, or client-scopes condition providers are used, the reject-ropc-grant executor is silently bypassed, allowing ROPC token acquisition contrary to policy.
Likely exposure
Highest concern is Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 or 26.6 using the named Client Policy condition providers to enforce reject-ropc-grant. The bundle names rhbk/keycloak-rhel9, rhbk/keycloak-rhel9-operator, and rhbk/keycloak-operator-bundle packages. Exposure is configuration-dependent.
Exploitation context
The source bundle does not report KEV listing or active exploitation. The CVSS vector indicates remote, unauthenticated, low-complexity exploitation with no user interaction, but only low confidentiality and integrity impact are scored.
Researcher notes
Evidence supports a policy bypass in specific Client Policy configurations. The affected-version data distinguishes package streams and includes unaffected product entries, so validate against Red Hat advisories before broad conclusions.
Mitigation direction
- Review Red Hat RHSA advisories for the applicable Keycloak package stream.
- Update affected Red Hat build of Keycloak packages per vendor guidance.
- Audit Client Policies using the named condition providers and reject-ropc-grant.
- Consider disabling ROPC grant where business workflows do not require it.
- Monitor identity logs for unexpected ROPC token issuance.
Validation and detection
- Inventory Red Hat build of Keycloak versions and package names.
- Identify clients and realms using reject-ropc-grant policies.
- Check whether policies depend on client-type, roles, attributes, or scopes conditions.
- Confirm updated packages match Red Hat unaffected guidance.
- Review token issuance logs for ROPC activity inconsistent with policy.
Public sources used
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
CWE-280: Exact CWE lookup
Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCredential and access behavior lookup
The CVE wording references authentication or credential exposure, so valid-account and credential-access review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCVE-2026-9792 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- Medium
- CVSS
- 6.5 (3.1)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
SSVC decision data
CVSS vector scores
1 official scoreWe collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N3.92.5redhatVulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 3.1 score
6.5MediumVector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Vulnerability timeline
Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.
- Source timelineredhat
Reported to Red Hat.
- CVE reservedCVE Program
The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.
- Source timelineredhat
Made public.
- CVE publishedCVE Program
The CVE record was published.
- CVE updatedCVE Program
The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.
ADP provider summaries
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- RHSA-2026:25097CVE reference, redhat · vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
- RHSA-2026:25098CVE reference, redhat · vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
- RHSA-2026:30049CVE reference, redhat · vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
- RHSA-2026:30050CVE reference, redhat · vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
- https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-9792CVE reference, redhat · vdb-entry, x_refsource_REDHAT
- RHBZ#2482459CVE reference, redhat · issue-tracking, x_refsource_REDHAT
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges
Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.