A flaw was found in Keycloak, an open-source identity and access management solution. When a client application is configured to accept broad redirect Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs), a remote attacker can manipulate the authentication process by crafting a special web address. If a user clicks this link, the client application might incorrectly prioritize attacker-controlled information over legitimate data. This vulnerability, known as HTTP parameter pollution, could allow an attacker to bypass security measures or gain unauthorized access to resources.
Weakness
The product receives a complex input with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually consistent.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Build_of_keycloak | Redhat | - (including) | - (including) |
Extended Description
Some input data can be structured with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, e.g. a number-of-items field that is followed by the expected number of elements. When such complex inputs are inconsistent, attackers could trigger unexpected errors, cause incorrect actions to take place, or exploit latent vulnerabilities.
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.