A flaw was found in Keycloaks Authorization Services. The component responsible for matching request paths to security policies (PathMatcher) does not properly normalize URIs before comparison. By adding extra characters like a trailing slash or matrix parameters to a URL, an attacker can trick the system into applying a less restrictive security policy than intended. This allows an authenticated user to access administrative or restricted areas they should not have permission to see.
Weakness
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 | RedHat | rhbk/keycloak-operator-bundle:26.4.14-1 | * |
| Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 | RedHat | rhbk/keycloak-rhel9:26.4-22 | * |
| Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4 | RedHat | rhbk/keycloak-rhel9-operator:26.4-22 | * |
| Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4.14 | RedHat | keycloak-services | * |
| Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.4.14 | RedHat | rhbk-openshift-rhel9/rhbk-openshift-rhel9 | * |
| Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6 | RedHat | rhbk/keycloak-operator-bundle:26.6.5-1 | * |
| Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6 | RedHat | rhbk/keycloak-rhel9:26.6-11 | * |
| Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6 | RedHat | rhbk/keycloak-rhel9-operator:26.6-11 | * |
| Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.5 | RedHat | keycloak-services | * |
| Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.5 | RedHat | rhbk/keycloak-rhel9 | * |
| Red Hat build of Keycloak 26.6.5 | RedHat | rhbk-openshift-rhel9/rhbk-openshift-rhel9 | * |
Extended Description
Improperly handled case sensitive data can lead to several possible consequences, including:
Potential Mitigations
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.