Bug 2402622 (CVE-2025-11538) - CVE-2025-11538 keycloak-server: Debug default bind address [NEEDINFO]
Summary: CVE-2025-11538 keycloak-server: Debug default bind address
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2025-11538
Deadline: 2025-11-09
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security DevOps Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-10-09 02:00 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2025-11-17 20:12 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Embargoed:
Jonathan.Leitschuh: needinfo? (security-response-team)


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2025-10-09 02:00:18 UTC
A vulnerability exists in Keycloak's server distribution where enabling debug mode (--debug <port>) insecurely defaults to binding the Java Debug Wire Protocol (JDWP) port to all network interfaces (0.0.0.0). This exposes the debug port to the local network, allowing an attacker on the same network segment to attach a remote debugger and achieve remote code execution within the Keycloak Java virtual machine.

Comment 1 Jonathan Leitschuh 2025-11-17 20:12:38 UTC
> This exposes the debug port to the local network, allowing an attacker on the same network segment to attach a remote debugger

What about how JDWP works prevents this from being exploited by someone not on the same network segment? Does JDWP have some sort of filtering in place, or is this something that keycloak offers?

My initial read of JDWP being exposed would be that, if exposed to the public internet, anyone would be able to exploit it.

Furthermore, shouldn't the availability metric also be "H" as well, since an RCE vulnerability would allow an attacker to take the system offline?

I'm trying to understand how this is a `CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N` not a `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H`.

The CVSS score published by Red hat here doesn't make sense to me.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.