Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-2575

Redhat Build Of Keycloak 26.4 – 26.4.10

Published
18 March 2026
Modified
03 June 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
EPSS Score 0.0050 40th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-2575 is a medium-severity Data Amplification (CWE-409) vulnerability in Redhat Build Of Keycloak. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 40th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-5 (Denial-of-service Protection) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A flaw was found in Keycloak. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger an application level Denial of Service (DoS) by sending a highly compressed SAMLRequest through the SAML Redirect Binding. The server fails to enforce size limits during DEFLATE decompression,…

more

leading to an OutOfMemoryError (OOM) and subsequent process termination. This vulnerability allows an attacker to disrupt the availability of the service.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI

T1499.004 Application or System Exploitation Impact
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities that can cause an application or system to crash and deny availability to users.
Why these techniques?

Directly enables application-layer DoS via exploitation of decompression flaw causing OOM/crash (T1499.004).

Confidence: HIGH · MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v19.0

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-9801Same product: Redhat Build Of Keycloak
CVE-2026-7307Same product: Redhat Build Of Keycloak
CVE-2026-9803Same product: Redhat Build Of Keycloak
CVE-2026-9799Same product: Redhat Build Of Keycloak
CVE-2026-9793Same product: Redhat Build Of Keycloak
CVE-2024-7318Same product: Redhat Build Of Keycloak
CVE-2026-4628Same product: Redhat Build Of Keycloak
CVE-2026-37982Same product: Redhat Build Of Keycloak
CVE-2026-3911Same product: Redhat Build Of Keycloak
CVE-2026-9796Same product: Redhat Build Of Keycloak

Affected Assets

redhat
build of keycloak
26.4 — 26.4.10

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • SI-10 Information Input Validation
  • SC-5 Denial-of-service Protection
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)
  • SI-4 System Monitoring
Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

prevent

Directly requires validation of SAMLRequest size and decompression bounds before processing, preventing the unbounded DEFLATE expansion that triggers OOM.

prevent

Mandates mechanisms to protect against resource-exhaustion DoS attacks exactly matching the compressed SAMLRequest vector described in the CVE.

detect

Enables monitoring of memory usage and anomalous SAML traffic patterns that would indicate an in-progress decompression-based DoS attempt.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure-development practices include input-validation and resource-limit checks that prevent improper handling of compressed data.

DE.CM-09 partial match
prevents

Runtime monitoring of compute resources can detect exhaustion caused by decompression bombs.

PR.IR-04 partial match
prevents

Capacity planning and monitoring directly limits the availability impact of data-amplification attacks.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

detects

Security testing can uncover decompression-bomb vulnerabilities before release.

mitigates

Redundancy helps availability but does not address the root cause of the weakness.

detects

Monitoring can detect anomalous resource usage but does not prevent the weakness.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle includes input validation and resource-limit checks that mitigate data-amplification attacks.

prevents

Application security requirements can mandate limits on decompression size and ratio.

prevents

Secure architecture principles encourage defensive design against resource-exhaustion threats.

References